Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Six of seven studies (including five replicated, controlled studies) in Australia, Iran, Nepal and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting increased abundance, species richness and diversity of understory plants, as well as the growth and survival rate of young trees. One study found shelterwood harvesting decreased plant species richness and abundance. One study found no effect of shelterwood harvest on tree abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of shelterwood harvest on red oak acorn production.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1223Mon, 23 May 2016 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer Six of eight studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled) in the USA, Finland, Brazil, Australia and Switzerland found that applying fertilizer increased total plant cover, understory plant biomass , size of young trees, relative  biomass of grasses (out of total biomass of all plants) and cover of plant species that were seeded artificially. Five of the studies found no effect of applying fertilizer on plant biomass, plant cover, seedling abundance, tree growth and tree seedling diversity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1248Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:30:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillagePest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (6 studies) Weeds (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, and Spain found fewer weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found more weeds in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled studies from Australia found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of weeds in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Weed species (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398Fri, 19 May 2017 09:05:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant flowersPest regulation (3 studies): Three replicated studies from Italy and the USA found greater pest reduction or higher proportions of parasitized pests in fields and farms with planted flower strips. Crop damage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more damage by caterpillars, but not by aphids, in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground. One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found that planted flower strips had inconsistent effects on crop damage by pests. Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found more pests on tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to unplanted field margins. One replicated before-and-after study from the USA found more aphids in fields after flower strips were made available. Natural enemy numbers (4 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with planted flower strips, compared to fields without planted flower strips, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found more natural enemies in planted flower strips than on bare ground, and one of these studies also found more species of natural enemies. Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA and Spain found that some flower species were more attractive to natural enemies than others. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found that planting more species of flowers, compared to fewer, had inconsistent effects on pests and pest species, but one of these found less crop damage next to flower strips with more species, compared to fewer, in some comparisons. This study also found more species of natural enemies in flower strips, over time, but did not find more individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400Fri, 19 May 2017 09:13:29 +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: Other biodiversity: Use seasonal grazingAmphibians (0 studies) Birds (0 studies) Invertebrates (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled before-and-after study in wet grasslands in the USA found more aquatic invertebrate species in continuously grazed plots, compared to seasonally grazed plots, in some comparisons. Mammals (0 studies) Plants (8 studies) Abundance (7 studies): Five studies (one meta-analysis; four replicated, randomized, and controlled studies) in grasslands in Israel and the USA found that the cover of native or non-native plants, or the abundance of plants, differed between sites grazed at different times, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from forested pastures in the USA and former farmland in Spain found no difference in plant cover between areas grazed at different times. Diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in grasslands in Israel and the USA found differences in the number and/or diversity of plant species between plots that were grazed at different times, in some comparisons. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found differences in tree survival between plots grazed at different times. Another one found no difference in bunchgrass survival between plots grazed at different times. Reptiles (0 studies) Implementation options (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1421https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1421Fri, 19 May 2017 11:33:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Run tourist projects and ensure permanent human presence at site Three studies, including two before-and-after studies and one controlled study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased after touristic projects were initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after and site comparison study in Rwanda found that the number of immature mountain gorillas increased by 22% and the number of snares declined by 30% after a tourism project was initiated, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite implementing a tourism project, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after a tourism project was implemented, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after, replicated study in China found that implementing an intensive tourism project for Tibetan macaques that included food provisioning and range restrictions, increased their stress levels compared to previous periods, with infant mortality reaching 100% in some years. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that after implementing a tourism project the population size and/or body size and group size declined for two lemur species but the number of individuals increased for one other lemur species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1512Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:55:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Detect & report dead primates and clinically determine their cause of death to avoid disease transmission One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years when dead chimpanzees were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in French Guiana found that most translocated white-faced sakis survived over four months when dead sakis were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs did not survive over five years despite the fact that dead lemurs were clinically examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that the population size of mountain gorillas where dead animals were examined to determine the cause of death, alongside other interventions, increased by 168% over 41 years. One before-and-after, site comparison study in Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas survived over four years when dead individuals were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Two studies, including a before-and-after, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most reintroduced pygmy slow lorises either died or disappeared despite the fact that dead lorises were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:58:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multimedia campaigns using theatre, film, print media, discussions Two before-and-after studies in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 61-138% over 3–13 years after the implementation of a multimedia campaign or the opening of a museum for wildlife education, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Brazil and Colombia found that the implementation of education programs focusing on tamarins improved attitudes towards- and knowledge about tamarins. One study in the Republic of Congo found that large numbers of people were informed about lowland gorillas through multimedia campaigns using theatre and film. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that poaching of diademed sifakas and black and white ruffed lemurs appeared to have ceased after the distribution of conservation books in local primary schools. One before-and-after study in India found that numbers of hoolock gibbons increased by 66% over five years after the implementation of an education and awareness programme, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in four African countries found that the level of knowledge about primates of visitors to a sanctuary housing guenons, mangabeys, chimpanzees and bonobos increased after the implementation of an education programme. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1571Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:45:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect primate habitat A review on the status of rhesus monkeys and grey snub-monkeys in China found that primate numbers increased or no more individuals were killed after the area was legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that Tana River red colobus monkey and crested mangabey numbers decreased despite the area being declared legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in China found that Hainan gibbon numbers increased by 34% over nine years after the area was declared legally protected. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years despite being reintroduced to a legally protected area, alongside other interventions yet they reproduced and surviving offspring partly compensated adult mortality. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most central chimpanzees and lowland gorillas reintroduced to areas that received legal protection, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–5 years. One controlled, site comparison study in Mexico found that black howler monkeys in protected areas had lower stress levels than individuals living in unprotected forest fragments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fostering appropriate behaviour to facilitate rehabilitation Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over 1–7 years, despite being fostered to survive in the wild, alongside other interventions but in one study they reproduced successfully which partly compensated mortality. Two before-and-after studies in Liberia and Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-3.5 years. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements despite being fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced orangutans that were fostered natural behaviour, alongside other interventions, did not act more like wild orangutans than individuals that were not fostered. One study in Indonesia found that reintroduced orangutans that were fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions, fed on fewer plant species and spent more time building nests. One site comparison study in Vietnam found that all reintroduced pygmy slow lorises were assumed dead despite being fostered natural behaviour prior to release, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1600Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:00:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use herbicide to control bracken One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found that applying herbicide to control bracken increased the number of heather seedlings. However, two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that spraying with herbicide did not increase heather cover. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide to control bracken increased heather biomass. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that the application of herbicide increased the number of plant species in a heathland site. However, one replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spraying bracken with herbicide had no effect on species richness or diversity. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide to control bracken increased the cover of wavy hair-grass and sheep’s fescue. One controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide to control bracken increased the cover of gorse and the abundance of common cow-wheat. One controlled, before-and-after trial in the UK found that the application of herbicide reduced the abundance of bracken but increased the number of silver birch seedlings. Three randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that the application of herbicide reduced the biomass or cover of bracken. However, one controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide did not change the abundance of bracken. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1652Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:09:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cut to control bracken One randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Norway and one randomized, controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken increased the cover or biomass of heather. However, two randomized, replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that cutting bracken did not increase heather cover or abundance of heather seedlings. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting to control bracken increased the species richness of heathland plant species. However, another randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting to control bracken did not alter species richness but did increase species diversity. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken increased cover of wavy hair-grass and sheep’s fescue. One controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken did not increase the abundance of gorse or common cow-wheat. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after trial in Norway and two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that cutting bracken reduced bracken cover or biomass. One randomized, replicated, controlled, paired study the UK found that cutting had mixed effects on bracken cover. However, one controlled study in the UK found that cutting bracken did not decrease the abundance of bracken. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1653Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:36:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create peatland vegetation (multiple interventions) Nine studies evaluated the effects of multiple restoration interventions (other than the moss layer transfer technique) on peatland vegetation. Six studies were in bogs (one being restored as a fen). One study was in a fen. Two studies were in unspecified or mixed peatlands. Plant community composition (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK reported that the overall plant community composition differed between restored and unrestored bogs. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Estonia found that restored and natural bogs contained more similar plant communities than unrestored and natural bogs. However, one site comparison study in Canada reported that after five years, bogs being restored as fens contained a different plant community to natural fens. Characteristic plants (1 study): One controlled study in a fen in France reported that restoration interventions increased cover of fen-characteristic plants. Moss cover (7 studies): Five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs or other peatlands in the UK, Estonia and Canada found that restoration interventions increased total moss (or bryophyte) cover. Two studies (one replicated and controlled) in bogs in the Czech Republic and Estonia reported that restoration interventions increased Sphagnum moss cover, but one replicated before-and-after study in bogs in the UK reported no change in Sphagnum cover following intervention. Two site comparison studies in Canada reported that after 1–15 years, restored areas had lower moss cover than natural fens. Herb cover (5 studies): Five studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs or other peatlands in the Czech Republic, the UK, Estonia and Canada reported that restoration interventions increased cover of herbaceous plants, including cottongrass and other grass-like plants. Overall vegetation cover (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated, controlled, before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and France reported that restoration interventions increased overall vegetation cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1803https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1803Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:29:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cover peatland with something other than mulch (after planting) Eight studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding covers (other than mulch) after planting peatland plants. Five studies involved bog plants, two involved fen plants and one involved peat swamp plants. Two of the studies were in greenhouses or nurseries. Germination (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a bog in Germany reported mixed effects of fleece and fibre mats on germination of sown herb and shrub seeds (positive or no effect, depending on species). Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies examined the effect, on plant survival, of covering planted areas. One study in a fen in Sweden reported that shading with plastic mesh increased survival of planted mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that shading with plastic mesh typically had no effect on survival of peat swamp tree species, but increased survival of some. Growth (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies examined the effect, on plant growth, of covering planted areas. One study in a greenhouse in Switzerland found that covering planted Sphagnum mosses with transparent plastic sheets or shading mesh increased their growth. One study in a fen in Sweden found that shading with plastic mesh reduced growth of planted fen mosses. One study in a nursery in Indonesia reported that seedlings shaded with plastic mesh grew taller and thinner than unshaded seedlings. Cover (4 studies): Two replicated, paired studies in a fen in Sweden and a bog in Australia reported that shading plots with plastic mesh increased cover of planted mosses. One study in a bog in Canada found that covering sown plots with plastic mesh, not transparent plastic sheets, increased the number of Sphagnum moss shoots. Another study in a bog in Canada reported that shading sown plots with plastic mesh had no effect on cover of vegetation overall, vascular plants, Sphagnum or other moss. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1829Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:51:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans Eight studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia, one was in the USA and Canada, one was in Austria and one was in Bangladesh. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Bangladesh found that when domestic dogs accompanied people to give advance warning of tiger presence, fewer tigers were killed by people. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Two studies, in the USA and Canada, found that pepper spray caused all or most American black bears and grizzly bears to flee or cease aggressive behaviour. One of these studies also showed that tear gas repelled half of American black bears. Two studies in the USA and Austria found that grizzly/brown bears were repelled by rubber bullets or by a range of deterrents including rubber bullets, chasing, shouting and throwing items. A study in the USA found that hikers wearing bear bells were less likely to be approached or charged by grizzly bears than were hikers without bells. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that ultrasonic sound deterrent units did not affect feeding location choices of dingoes. A study in Bangladesh found that domestic dogs accompanying people gave advance warning of tiger presence, enabling people to take precautionary actions. A study in Australia found that a motorised water pistol caused most dingoes to change direction or speed or move ≥5 m away, but sounding a horn did not.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385Wed, 27 May 2020 15:41:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Germany, the UK, Spain, China, Tanzania and Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Four replicated studies (including three before-and-after studies), in USA, China, Tanzania and Kenya, found that non-electric fencing reduced livestock predation by coyotes, Tibetan brown bears, and a range of mammalian predators. A replicated, controlled study in USA found that a high woven wire fence with small mesh, an overhang and an apron (to deter burrowing) was the most effective design at deterring crossings by coyotes. A replicated, controlled study in Germany found that fencing with phosphorescent tape was more effective than fencing with normal yellow tape for deterring red deer and roe deer, but had no effect on crossings by wild boar or brown hare. Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison and one controlled study) in the UK and Spain found that fences reduced European rabbit numbers on or damage to crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial refuges/breeding sites Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges/breeding sites. Two studies were in each of the USA, Spain and Portugal and one was in each of Argentina and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled), in Spain and Portugal, found that artificial warrens increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Argentina found that artificial refuges did not increase abundances of small vesper mice or Azara's grass mice. Survival (1 study): A study in USA found that artificial escape dens increased swift fox survival rates. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (two replicated), in Australia, Spain, Portugal and the USA, found that artificial refuges, warrens or nest structures were used by fat-tailed dunnarts, European rabbits, and Key Largo woodrats and Key Largo cotton mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using selective harvesting instead of clearcutting. Four studies were in Canada, three were in the USA and one was a review of studies in North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that harvesting trees selectively did not result in higher small mammal species richness compared to clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): One of six replicated, controlled or replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada found more small mammals in selectively harvested forest stands than in fully harvested, regenerating stands. Three studies found that selective harvesting did not increase small mammal abundance relative to clearcutting. The other two studies found mixed results with one of four small mammal species being more numerous in selectively harvested stands or in selectively harvested stands only in some years. A systematic review in North American forests found that partially harvested forests had more red-backed voles but not deer mice than did clearcut forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partially harvested forest was not used by snowshoe hares more than was largely clearcut forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all commercial fishing Eight studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all commercial fishing in an area on marine fish populations. Two studies were in the Tasman Sea (Australia), and one was in each of the Indian Ocean (Australia), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Greenland Sea (Iceland), the Gulf of Mexico (USA), the South China Sea (China) and the South Atlantic Ocean (South Africa). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one site comparison) in the Tasman Sea and South China Sea found that the fish assemblage/species composition was different before and after prohibiting all commercial fishing, in an estuary after two years, and in the nearby wider region surrounding two marine reserves five years after their creation. One site comparison study in the South Atlantic Ocean found no change in species composition between a reserve closed to all commercial fishing for 40 years and unprotected fished areas. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One site comparison study in the South Atlantic Ocean found no difference in overall fish diversity between a protected area closed to all commercial fishing for 40 years compared to unprotected fished areas. One before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that fish species richness decreased in the wider region five years after all commercial fishing was banned in two marine reserves. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, south Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico found that in protected areas prohibiting all commercial fishing for five years and 40 years there were higher abundances of three of 12 commercially targeted and non-targeted fish species/groups and one of four commercially targeted fish species, compared to unprotected fished areas. One study found mixed effects on fish densities 30–40 years after banning all commercial fishing, varying with level of commercial exploitation, and higher abundances of five of five commercially exploited species. The other study found there was no increase in white seabream and gilthead bream biomass 2–13 years after closure compared to an unprotected fished area, but it was lower than a no-take area protected for over nine years. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that most fish species in an estuary in a marine reserve had a lower abundance two years after it was closed to all commercial fishing than before, as did one of two reference sites in unprotected adjacent estuaries. One before-and-after study in the South China Sea found that in the five years after the creation of two marine reserves with limits on commercial fishing activity, overall fish density in the nearby wider region increased. One replicated, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in areas of a marine reserve closed to commercial trapping, fish abundance varied over 10 years and was higher for some groups than others compared to reserve sites open to trapping. Condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in marine reserve areas banning all commercial fishing for five years, overall fish size was bigger compared to fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Greenland Sea found that areas closed to commercial fishing (trawling) had higher recaptures of tagged smaller immature cod than adult cod over time compared to trawled areas, indicating they were more likely to have an increased protection from fishing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2667Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:03:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use cutting/mowing to control problematic herbaceous plants: freshwater marshes Eight studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of cutting/mowing problematic herbaceous plants or small shrubs in freshwater marshes. Six studies were in the USA, one was in Mexico and one was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a cattail-dominated marsh in the USA found that cutting altered the overall plant community composition over the following two years. Relative abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a grass-invaded marsh in Mexico found that cut and uncut plots supported a similar relative abundance of six common plant species after 4–8 months. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in invaded marshes/wet meadows in the USA found that cut plots typically had greater overall plant species richness and/or diversity than uncut plots, after 1–3 growing seasons. One of the studies carried out other interventions along with cutting. Two replicated, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA and Mexico found that cut and uncut plots had similar overall plant richness and/or diversity, after 1–2 growing seasons. Native/non-target richness/diversity (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a reed-dominated freshwater marsh in the USA found that cutting/mowing (along with applying herbicide) increased non-reed species richness three years later. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA found that mown and unmown marshes had similar native plant species richness after 1–12 months VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA and Mexico found that cut and uncut plots contained a similar amount of vegetation after 1–2 growing seasons. This was true for cover of wetland plants and density of all plants. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in iris-invaded lakeshore marshes in Canada reported that cutting reduced overall vegetation cover, one year later, in a permanently flooded marsh but had no clear effect on cover in an intermittently flooded marsh. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a cattail-invaded wet meadow in the USA found that plots in which cattail was cut four times over two growing seasons developed greater cover of sedges Carex than uncut plots, but that cutting cattail only twice had no significant effect on sedge cover. Native/non-target abundance (3 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired; one also before-and-after) in reed- or canarygrass-dominated wetlands in the USA found that cut plots typically contained more native or non-target vegetation than uncut plots, after 1–3 growing seasons. Both studies carried out other interventions along with cutting. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in cattail-invaded marshes in the USA found that mown and unmown marshes supported a similar native vegetation density after 1–12 months, and similar native vegetation biomass after 12 months. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. For example, one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a grass-invaded marsh in Mexico found that five of five monitored native species had similar cover in cut and uncut plots after 4–8 months. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3104Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:58:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create brackish/saline marshes or swamps (multiple actions) Eight studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using >3 combined actions to restore/create brackish/saline marshes or swamps. Six studies were in the USA. One was in Singapore. One was in Indonesia. Three studies were based on the same experimental set-up. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One study of a coastal site in the USA reported that the coverage of mangrove vegetation increased, and the coverage of herbaceous vegetation declined, over five years after intervention (intended to restore mangrove forest). Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Three studies of one salt marsh restoration site in the USA simply quantified plant species richness for up to 13 growing seasons after intervention. Tree/shrub richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Indonesia reported that a restored aquaculture pond contained a similar number of mangrove species to nearby reference forests, just 6–7 months after intervention. Some trees may have been present before intervention. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study of salt marshes in the USA found that restored marshes had similar overall vegetation cover to natural marshes after 9–20 years. Three studies of one salt marsh restoration site in the USA simply quantified overall vegetation abundance for up to 13 growing seasons after intervention. Tree/shrub abundance (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study of salt marshes in the USA found that restored marshes had similar, limited shrub cover to natural marshes after 9–20 years. One site comparison study of mangrove forests in Singapore reported that a created mangrove forest supported lower above-ground biomass than mature natural forests after ≥15 years. One study in Indonesia simply counted the number of mangrove trees present 6–7 months after intervention. Individual species abundance (4 studies): Four studies in estuaries in the USA simply quantified the abundance of individual plant species for up to 13 growing seasons after intervention. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study of salt marshes in the USA found that restored marshes had less cover of short vegetation and greater cover of medium-height vegetation than natural marshes after 9–20 years. Restored and natural marshes had similar cover of tall vegetation. Height (2 studies): One study of a created mangrove forest in Singapore reported that the average height of surviving mangrove saplings increased over five years. One study of a salt marsh restoration site in the USA reported that maximum vegetation height did not clearly increase between the third and twelfth/thirteenth growing seasons after intervention. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3193Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:22:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce seeds of non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands Eight studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of introducing seeds of emergent, non-woody plants to brackish/saline wetlands. There were three studies in the USA, two in the Netherlands and two in China. The other study was a global systematic review. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (4 studies): Four replicated studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. One study in an estuary in China also gave a before-and-after comparison, and reported higher density and biomass of seablite Suaeda salsa five months after sowing its seeds than on the bare sediment present before sowing. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated study on a mudflat in the Netherlands reported that the average height of surviving common cordgrass Spartina anglica plants increased, between one and six months after sowing cordgrass seeds. OTHER            Germination/emergence (5 studies): Five replicated studies in the Netherlands, the USA and China quantified germination rates of seeds sown into intertidal areas. Some seeds germinated in all five studies, at a rate of <1% to 25%. Two studies reported that no seeds germinated for some species and/or in some environments. Survival (3 studies): One replicated study in a salt marsh in the Netherlands quantified survival rates of individual germinated seedlings: 0–83% over their first growing season, depending on species and site conditions. Another replicated study in a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that after two growing seasons, common cordgrass Spartina anglica was absent from 90% of plots in which had been sown. One global systematic review reported variable survival of herbs sown (or planted) in salt marshes: 0% to ≥95% after 20 days to 13 years, depending on the study. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3265https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3265Sat, 10 Apr 2021 15:35:13 +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