Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shark liver oil to reduce seabird bycatch Two replicated and controlled trials found reductions in the number of seabirds following boats, or diving for baits, when shark liver oil was dripped behind the boats. Other oils had no effect. A third replicated and controlled trial in found no differences in the number of seabirds following a bait-laying boat with shark liver oil. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F297https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F297Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:16:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance at nest sites Six studies (two replicated and controlled, two before-and-after and two small studies) from across the world found increased numbers of breeders, higher reproductive success or lower levels of disturbance in waders and terns following the start of access restrictions or the erection of signs near nesting areas. One Canadian study involved the use of multiple interventions. A before-and-after study from the USA found that a colony of black-crowned night herons Nycticorax nycticorax was successfully relocated to an area with no public access. One small study from Europe and one replicated and controlled study from Antarctica found no effect of access restrictions on the reproductive success of eagles or penguins, respectively. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F309https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F309Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:56:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcuttingA replicated study from the USA found that community composition of birds in shelterwood stands differed from other forestry practices, with some species more abundant and others less so. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F333https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F333Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:08:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no evidence for the effects of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F795https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F795Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:38:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists One study in the UK found that despite warning signs and human assistance, over 500 toads were killed on some roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F841https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F841Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:56:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher, similar or initially higher and then similar salamander abundance. A meta-analysis of 24 studies in North America found that partial harvest, which included shelterwood harvesting with three other types, resulted in smaller reductions in salamander populations than clearcutting Two of three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to no harvesting, shelterwood harvesting decreased salamander abundance and changed species composition. One found that shelterwood harvesting did not affect salamander abundance. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to unharvested plots, the proportion of female salamanders carrying eggs, eggs per female or proportion of juveniles were similar or lower in harvested plots that included shelterwood harvested plots, depending on species and time since harvest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F851https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F851Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:42:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging on bat populations. Two studies were in the Neotropics, one study was in Italy and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Trinidad found that the composition of bat species differed between selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar bat diversity in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar overall bat activity (relative abundance) in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. One review of 41 studies in the Neotropics found that reduced impact logging had a smaller effect on bat abundance than conventional logging. One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found greater bat activity at two of three sites that used selective logging techniques to open up the forest canopy rather than leaving the canopy intact. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects of using shelterwood cutting instead of ‘gap release’ cutting on bat populations. The study was in Australia. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found more Gould’s long-eared bats roosting in remnant trees within forests that had been shelterwood harvested than in forests harvested using gap release methods. Comparisons were not made with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:27:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs to prevent fire We found no evidence for the effects of using signs to prevent fires 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%2F1172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1172Thu, 19 May 2016 09:45:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher plant diversity, lower grass cover and higher density of tree species compared with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1214Fri, 20 May 2016 13:48:37 +0100Collected 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 selective thinning after restoration planting One replicated, paired sites study in Canada found that selective thinning after restoration planting conifers increased the abundance of herbaceous species and decreased the abundance of trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1238https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1238Fri, 03 Jun 2016 09:16:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shading for planted trees One replicated, controlled study in Panama found that shading increased the survival rate of planted native tree seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1269Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:19:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:33:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to discourage access to sensitive areas of shrub habitat 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%2F1620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1620Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:36:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325Thu, 21 May 2020 08:38:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective trapping methods in hunting activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects on non-target mammals of using selective trapping methods in hunting activities. ‘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%2F2611https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2611Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:44:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sinking lines instead of floating lines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using sinking lines instead of floating lines on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2799Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:41:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Five studies evaluated the effects of using signage to warn motorists of wildlife presence on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Dominica and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the USA found that installing road signs reduced road mortalities of massasaugas in autumn but not summer. The other study found that installing road signs did not reduce road mortalities of painted or Blanding’s turtles. Two before-and-after studies (one replicated) in Canada and the USA found that a combination of installing road signs with either fencing and tunnels or a hybrid nestbox-fencing barrier resulted in fewer road mortalities of massasaugas and diamondback terrapins. One before-and-after study in Dominica found that a combination of using road signs and running an awareness campaign resulted in fewer road mortalities of Antillean iguanas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3524https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3524Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:05:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sinking lines instead of floating lines We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using sinking lines instead of floating lines. ‘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%2F3606https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3606Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:36:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Two studies evaluated the effects of shelterwood harvesting on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile species richness compared to areas with no management. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized study in the USA found that areas with shelterwood harvesting had a lower abundance of juvenile eastern box turtles than clearcut areas. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that shelterwood harvesting had mixed effects on reptile abundance compared to areas with no management. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3636Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:52:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. This study was in Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Turkey found that in an area with signs where sea turtle nests were fenced, nests had higher hatching success than nests from areas with no fencing or signs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3642Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:26:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F3849https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3849Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:30:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was managed by shelterwood harvesting, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the shelterwood harvested forest was similar to a thinned forest and an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by shelterwood harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting, group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered faster after shelterwood harvesting than after group selection harvesting or clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3871Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:48:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting. This study was in Slovenia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Slovenia found that fewer individual moths and moth species were attracted to lights fitted with blinds to prevent light scattering (along with filters to remove shorter wavelengths) than to conventional lights without blinds or filters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3904Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:14:48 +0100