Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowlA small controlled in Australia found that two malleefowl Leipoa ocellata nests were abandoned after they dried out, despite being watered, although unwatered nests were abandoned much earlier.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:48:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wash contaminated semen and use it for artificial inseminationA single replicated controlled study in Spain found that semen contaminated with urine could be successfully washed to increase its pH and produced three raptor nestlings.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F603Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:47:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores A controlled, replicated field study in China, found a flea beetle caused heavy feeding destruction when added to field cages containing prostrate water primrose seedlings, and was specific to the prostrate water primrose and Indian toothcup. A replicated, before-and-after field study in the USA found that introduction of flea beetles to a pond significantly reduced the abundance of large-flower primrose-willow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:03:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using native herbivores No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using native herbivores. '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%2F1136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1136Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:07:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using fungal-based herbicides. '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%2F1137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1137Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:09:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Physical removal A study in the USA found that hand pulling and raking water primrose failed to reduce its abundance, whereas hand-pulling from the margins of a pond eradicated a smaller population of water primrose. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:11:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young cultivated water primrose within two months. A before-and-after field study in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate controlled water primrose, causing 97% mortality when mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined with TopFilm. A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela3, found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:14:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A study in California, USA1, found that application of glyphosate and a surface active agent called Cygnet-Plus followed by removal by mechanical means achieved a 75% kill rate of water primrose. A study in Australia2, found that a combination of herbicide application, physical removal, and other actions such as promotion of native plants and mulching, reduced the coverage of Peruvian primrose-willow by 85-90%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:22:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of hydrogen peroxide No evidence was found for use of hydrogen peroxide to control water primrose. '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%2F1141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1141Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:26:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of liquid nitrogen No evidence was found for use of liquid nitrogen to control water primrose. '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%2F1142https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1142Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:27:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Flame treatment No evidence was found for use of flame treatment to control water primrose. '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%2F1143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1143Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:28:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of mats placed on the bottom of the water body No evidence was found for use of mats placed on the bottom of a water body to control water primrose. '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%2F1144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1144Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of a tarpaulin No evidence was captured on the use of tarpaulin for control of water primrose. '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%2F1145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1145Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Excavation of banks No evidence was captured on the effects of excavation of banks using a sod-cutter or ‘turf-cutter’ to remove water primrose. '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%2F1146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1146Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:32:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Environmental control (e.g shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging) No evidence was captured on the use of environmental control of water primrose using shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging. '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%2F1147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1147Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:33:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of water primrose. '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%2F1148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1148Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:34:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water seedlings One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that watering tree seedlings increased survival during a dry summer but only increased the survival of some species during a wet summer, depending on the habitat. Watering increased or had no effect on seedling emergence depending on habitat and water availability.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1154Wed, 18 May 2016 15:16:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water plants to preserve dry tropical forest species One replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that watering plants increased the abundance and biomass of forest plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1242Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:55:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsWater use (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one found that cover crops used more water than bare fallows, and one found no difference in water use. Water availability (16 studies) Water content (9 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Water loss (6 studies): Five controlled studies (four replicated, three randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost (through drainage, runoff, or evaporation) from plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more water was lost through drainage from plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Water infiltration (3 studies): Of two replicated, controlled studies from the USA, one found that more water filtered into soils with cover crops, and one found no difference in infiltration between plots with or without winter cover crops. One controlled study from the USA found that more water percolated deep into the soil in part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to part with a winter fallow. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Nutrients (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that less nitrate was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from part of a field with a winter cover crop and part with a winter fallow. This study also found less ammonium and dissolved carbon, but more phosphorus, in runoff from the part with the winter cover crop, in some comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One controlled study from the USA found less suspended sediment in runoff from part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to a winter fallow, in some comparisons. Implementation options (5 studies): One study from Spain found more water in soils with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term, in some comparisons. Two studies from Spain and the USA found differences in water availability between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found differences in nitrate leaching between plots with different cover crops. One study from the USA found similar infiltration rates under different cover crops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357Thu, 04 May 2017 13:33:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add compost to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and the USA found more water in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soil with or without added compost. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found that less water was lost as runoff from soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of four comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added compost, if the compost was split into two small applications, compared to one large application.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377Mon, 15 May 2017 15:18:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add manure to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found more water in soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Greece and the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added manure. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more dissolved organic carbon, but similar amounts of nitrate, in runoff from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, potassium, and organic matter was leached from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378Mon, 15 May 2017 15:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add sewage sludge to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with a split application of sewage sludge, but not with a single application, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379Mon, 15 May 2017 15:23:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add slurry to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added slurry, and another one found similar amounts of water-filled pore space. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. One of these studies also found that more nitrate was lost in runoff from plots with added slurry, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added slurry. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more dissolved organic matter in soils, or leached from soils, with added slurry. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One study from Spain found that less nitrate was leached from plots with surface application, compared to injection, of slurry. One study from Spain found that less nitrate was lost through runoff and leaching from plots with less added slurry, compared to more. One study from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry, and another found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with less or more added slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380Mon, 15 May 2017 15:25:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant buffer stripsWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of water were lost as runoff from plots with or without buffers. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated study from the USA found that grass buffer strips decreased the amount of Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff, after bovine manure was applied to slopes. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrate in runoff from irrigated pastures with buffer strips, but another one found no differences in nitrate or phosphorus in runoff from pastures with or without buffer strips. Sediments (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found less sediment in runoff from irrigated fields or pastures with buffers, compared to those without buffers, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated study from the USA found less C. parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff from flatter buffer strips, compared to steeper. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with narrower buffer strips, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that buffers trapped more runoff in the four weeks after fertilizer application, compared to the next 10 weeks.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387Mon, 15 May 2017 16:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Exclude grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands and shrublands in the USA and Spain found less water in areas with cattle and sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in wet grasslands in the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH in surface water in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies found more nitrate in stream water in ungrazed areas, compared to grazed areas, in one of two experiments. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in surface water turbidity between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389Mon, 15 May 2017 16:04:29 +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