Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We have captured no evidence for the effects of campaigning or raising awareness about bees and their 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%2F59https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F59Thu, 20 May 2010 16:10:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife A replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that raised mowing heights provided benefits to Eurasian skylark including increased productivity. A review found raised cutting heights were less damaging to amphibians and invertebrates. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial from the UK found that raising mowing height on grasslands had no effect on numbers of foraging birds or invertebrates. One replicated controlled study found no difference in invertebrate abundance. One replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common starling chicks had greater foraging success in shorter grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public informationA review of programmes in the USA and Canada argues that education was not sufficient to change behaviour, although it was necessary as a catalytic factor for economic incentives and law enforcement.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162Sat, 19 May 2012 19:59:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit birds A review from the UK found that raising mowing height may have increased productivity of Eurasian skylarks, but not sufficiently to maintain the local population. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted to plots with raised mowing heights, compared to plots with shorter grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F222Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:06:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in Estonia and the UK found that raising public awareness, along with other interventions, increased numbers of natterjack toads and created 1,023 ponds for amphibians. One before-and-after study in Mexico found that raising awareness in tourists, increased their knowledge of axolotls. One study in Taiwan found that holding press conferences to publicize frog conservation had no effect on a green tree frog project. Two studies in Panama and the UK found that awareness campaigns reached over 50,000 members of the public each year or trained 1,016 people at 57 events over four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We found no evidence for the effect of raising awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information 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%2F1157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1157Wed, 18 May 2016 15:35:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates One review in Japan found that aggressive interactions between Japanese macaques and humans declined after prohibiting tourists from feeding of monkeys. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1507Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:47:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public on shrublands. '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%2F1717https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1717Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:02:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (general) One study evaluated the effects of interventions to raise general public awareness about peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. The study reported effects on unspecified peatlands. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that following awareness-raising activities, the percentage of the public buying peat-free compost increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about wild fire on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1845https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1845Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about problematic species on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1846https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1846Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland management or monitoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging volunteers to manage or monitor peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1847Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits and/or vessels from fishers 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%2F2114https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2114Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:44:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Publish data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts One study evaluated the effects on poaching incidents of publishing data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts. This study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that when data were publishing on staff performance, poaching incidents decreased on these sites and on sites from which performance data were not published. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that publishing data on staff performance lead to an increase in anti-poaching patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage fires in or near these habitats. ‘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%2F3081https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3081Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:59:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage litteringWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage littering in/near marshes or swamps. ‘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%2F3165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3165Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:16:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level (before/after planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level in areas planted with emergent marsh/swamp plants. ‘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%2F3274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3274Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:03:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. Both studies were in the USA. One study was in a laboratory. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Survival (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in created wetlands in the USA reported that root-pruned red maple Acer rubrum seedlings had a higher survival rate than unpruned seedlings, 1–2 years after planting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings had similar survival rates, 108 days after planting. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings grew in height by a similar amount over the first 108 days after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3357Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:24:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise public awareness about marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of interventions to raise public awareness about marshes or swamps. ‘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%2F3389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3389Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:52:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height One study evaluated the effects of raising mowing height on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that in long-sward pastures or crops marbled geckos did not navigate directly towards a tree, whereas in short-sward pastures they did. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3513Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:11:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put out wildfires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of putting out wildfires 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%2F3659https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3659Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:48:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing permits from fishers to limit vessel or fisher numbers 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%2F3818https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3818Fri, 27 May 2022 08:43:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Purchase fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of purchasing fishing vessels from fishers to limit vessel numbers 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%2F3819https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3819Fri, 27 May 2022 08:45:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions for butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3847Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:26:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise cutting height on grasslands Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of raising cutting height on grasslands. One study was in each of the UK and Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar species richness of butterflies to plots cut to 5 cm. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar abundance of butterflies and caterpillars to plots cut to 5 cm. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that the survival of large white caterpillars in grassland plots cut to 9 cm was similar to in plots cut to 6 cm2. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that a similar proportion of wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were cut to 9 cm or 6 cm. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:38:54 +0100