Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plough habitats One of four studies (of two experiments), from the USA, found that bird densities were higher on ploughed wetland areas, compared to unploughed areas. Three studies of a site comparison study from the UK found that few whimbrels nested on ploughed and re-seeded areas of heathland, but these areas were used for foraging in early spring. There were no differences in chick survival between birds that used ploughed and re-seeded heathland and those that did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F358Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play spoken-word radio programmes to deter predators We found no published evidence for the effects of playing the radio on predation rates. '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%2F414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F414Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:20:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Biological control using predatory fish No evidence was captured for the use of predatory fish to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1087Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:23:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Control movement of gammarids A replicated, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that movements of invasive freshwater shrimp slowed down or stopped when they were placed in water that had been exposed to different species of predatory fish, compared to those not exposed to fish. A replicated laboratory study in the UK found carbonating the water stunned invasive killer shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1088https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1088Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:28:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change salinity of the waterOne of two replicated laboratory studies (one controlled) in Canada and the UK found that increasing the salinity level of water killed the majority of invasive shrimp within five hours. One found that increased salinity did not kill invasive killer shrimp.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1091Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:36:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change water temperature A controlled laboratory study from the UK1 found that heating water to >36°C killed all shrimps after 15 minutes exposure and at >43°C all shrimps died immediately. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1092Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:38:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Change water pH A controlled laboratory study from the UK found that lowering the pH of water did not kill invasive killer shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1093Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:41:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Dewater (dry out) the habitat A replicated, controlled laboratory study from Poland found that lowering water levels in sand killed three species of invasive freshwater shrimp, although one species required water content levels of 4% and below before it was killed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:44:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Add chemicals to the water A controlled laboratory study in the UK found that iodine solution, acetic acid, Virkon S and sodium hypochlorite added to freshwater killed invasive killer shrimp, but were considered impractical for field application. Methanol, citric acid, urea, hydrogen peroxide and sucrose did not kill invasive killer shrimp when added to freshwater. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1095Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:48:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Cleaning equipment No evidence was captured for the cleaning of equipment to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1096Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:49:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exchanging ballast water No evidence was captured for exchanging ballast water to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1097Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:51:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollard trees (top cutting or top pruning) We captured no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding 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%2F1189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1189Thu, 19 May 2016 11:49:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated site comparison from Greece found more bee species and more deposited pollen grains in managed olive orchards, compared to abandoned olive orchards, which differed in ground cover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1404Fri, 19 May 2017 09:24:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (0 studies) Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more pollinators in plots with no tillage, compared to deep tillage. Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1405Fri, 19 May 2017 09:27:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant flowersPollination (0 studies) Crop visitation (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found more pollinators on coriander flowers next to planted flower strips, compared to coriander flowers next to unplanted field margins. Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more wild bee species and individuals in planted flower strips, compared to unplanted strips, in some comparisons, but found no differences for syrphid flies. Implementation options (8 studies): Five replicated studies from Spain and the USA found that some planted flower species were more attractive to pollinators than others. Four replicated studies from Italy and Spain found more pollinators where more flower species had been planted, in some comparisons, but in other comparisons found fewer pollinators where more flower species had been planted. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that bee numbers increased over time in areas planted with three or six flower species, but decreased over time in areas planted with nine flower species.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1406Fri, 19 May 2017 09:31:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Plant hedgerowsPollination (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found higher seed-set in canola plants due to flower visitation by native bees in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. However, this study found no difference in seed-set due to flower visitation by honey bees or syrphid flies. Crop visitation (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found higher crop visitation rates by native bees, but not by honey bees or syrphid flies, in fields next to planted hedgerows, compared to fields next to unplanted edges. Another replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found no difference in flower visitation rates by bees in fields next to planted edges. Pollinator numbers (6 studies): Five replicated studies from the USA found more bee species in fields with hedgerows, or in hedgerows themselves, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Three of these studies found more syrphid fly species in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One of these studies found similar numbers of syrphid fly species in fields with or without hedgerows. Two of these studies found more native bee and hoverfly individuals or more specialist bees in hedgerows, compared to field edges without hedgerows. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer ground-nesting bees, but similar numbers of bee species and flower-visiting bees, in planted hedgerows, compared to unplanted edges. Implementation options (3 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found more bee species in old hedgerows, compared to young hedgerows, and one of these studies also found more syrphid fly species. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more bee species on native plants, compared to non-native plants, in old hedgerows, but not in young hedgerows.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1407Fri, 19 May 2017 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pollination: Restore habitat along watercoursesPollination (0 studies) Flower visitation (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found that bee visitation rates to native flowers did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different plant-insect interactions. Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of bees and bee species, but different bee communities, in restored and remnant sites. Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1408Fri, 19 May 2017 09:36:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant/sow seeds of nurse plants alongside focal plants A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and heathland plants did not increase the cover of common heather. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds of nurse plants and California sagebrush seeds together reduced survival of shrubs in more than half of cases. The same study found that California sagebrush biomass was also reduced when its seeds were sown with those of nurse plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1713https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1713Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:44:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant/seed under established vegetation A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seed under established shrubs had mixed effects on blackbrush seedling emergence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1714https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1714Mon, 23 Oct 2017 13:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play predator calls to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of playing predator calls to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2487https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2487Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:12:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play predator calls to deter mammals from fishing gear One study evaluated the effects of playing predator calls to deter mammals from fishing gear. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Africa). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that playing killer whale vocalisations did not deter Cape fur seals from feeding on fish catches in a purse-seine net or trawl net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2817https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2817Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:08:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in freshwater marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of backfilled canals in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that emergent marsh vegetation coverage was greater within the channels of plugged than unplugged canals, after 6–60 months. However, coverage on former spoil areas did not significantly differ between plugged and unplugged canals. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2991Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in brackish/salt marshes. Both studies were in the USA. There was overlap in the canals used in the studies. Both studies included some freshwater areas in some analyses, but all results are based predominantly on canals in brackish or saline marshes. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies studied emergent vegetation of backfilled canals in the USA. One study reported that plugged canals had greater coverage of emergent marsh vegetation than unplugged canals after 6–60 months. One study found that emergent vegetation coverage on former spoil heaps did not significantly differ alongside plugged and unplugged canals after 6–11 years. The first study also reported that plugged canals were more likely to contain floating/submerged vegetation than unplugged canals. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2992Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in freshwater 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%2F2993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2993Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in brackish/saline 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%2F2994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2994Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:09:11 +0100