Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests from predators using non-electric fencing Two studies from the USA and UK found that fewer nests were predated or failed when predator exclusion fences were erected. Two studies from the USA found that nesting success or fledging success did not differ between areas with fences erected and those without fences; although one found that hatching rates were higher with fences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:15:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of ground nesting seabirds A before-and-after study from Japan found an increase in fledging rates of little terns Sterna albifrons following the provision of chick shelters and other interventions. Two studies from the USA and Canada found reduced predation of tern chicks following the provision of chick shelters. A small study from the USA found low levels of use of chick shelters, except when predators were present.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F397Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:01:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of storks and ibisesA randomised, replicated and controlled study from Cambodia found that giant ibis Thaumatibis gigantean fledgling rates were higher for nests in protected trees than controls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F399Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:10:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of songbirds Three studies from across the world found increased fledging success for nests in trees protected by individual barriers. A replicated controlled study from the USA also found higher success for ground-nests protected by individual barriers. Two studies from the UK and Japan found lower predation rates on nests protected by individual barriers.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F400Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:13:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more aphids in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons, but another one found similar numbers of aphids in the same study system. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393Mon, 15 May 2017 16:14:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPest regulation (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more leafhopper eggs were parasitized in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in one of six comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found inconsistent differences or no differences in the parasitism of leafhopper eggs between plots with or without ground cover. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more grapes were damaged by pests in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (12 studies) Weeds (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in an olive orchard in Spain found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from a vineyard in the USA found more weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of nine comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different numbers of weeds or weed species in plots with different types of ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One study from the USA found similar numbers of weeds in vine rows with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that plant diversity decreased over time in plots without tillage, but increased in plots with tillage. This study found that tillage had no effects on the number of plant species and had inconsistent effects on plant biomass. Insects (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found fewer leafhoppers in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more leafhoppers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafhoppers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more navel orangeworm moths in plots with resident vegetation, compared to tilled soil, in one of two comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from the USA found fewer pests in plots with mown ground cover, compared to unmown ground cover or ground cover before mowing. Mammals (1 study) Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more gophers in plots with clover, compared to other cover crops. Natural enemy numbers (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Spain and the USA found more natural enemies in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found fewer parasitoids in plots with ground cover, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in the numbers of spiders between plots with or without ground cover. One of these studies found no difference in the number of spider species between plots with or without ground cover, and another one found no difference in the composition of spider communities. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more natural enemies in plots with mown cover crops, one week after mowing, compared to before mowing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use crop rotationsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found less weed biomass in plots with a canola-wheat sequence, compared to a wheat-wheat sequence. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weed biomass in plots with four-year or two-year crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found no differences in most diseases between plots with no tillage or conventional tillage, but found a higher incidence of Aschochyta blight in plots with no tillage. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in weeds (sometimes more weeds in plots with no tillage, sometimes fewer). One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found similar numbers of weeds in plots with or without tillage. Weed species (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with or without tillage. Other pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found fewer parasitic plants (broomrapes) in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in plots with or without tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397Fri, 19 May 2017 09:00:38 +0100Collected 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: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey, and the USA found more weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of weeds in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Weed species (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found similar numbers of weed species in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that weed communities had different compositions in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Diseases and pest insects (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of diseases and pest insects in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399Fri, 19 May 2017 09:10:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Restore habitat along watercoursesPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant habitats. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to older restored sites, compared to younger restored sites.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402Fri, 19 May 2017 09:17:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude vehicles from peatlands One study evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding vehicles from peatlands. The study was in a fen. Vegetation structure (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, site comparison study in a floating fen in the USA reported that fencing off airboat trails allowed total and non-woody vegetation biomass to increase, recovering to levels recorded in undisturbed fen. Woody plant biomass did not recover. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that fencing off airboat trails allowed overall plant diversity to increase, recovering to levels recorded in undisturbed fen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1750https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1750Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:31:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude pedestrians from peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of physically excluding pedestrians from peatlands. ‘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%2F1752https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1752Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:32:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1769https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1769Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude vehiclesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding vehicles from marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3020Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:40:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude pedestriansWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding pedestrians from marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3023Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:43:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in freshwater marshes. There were two studies in Australia and two in Costa Rica. In each country, the two studies were based in one study area but used different experimental set-ups. The final study was in Mexico. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that crushing (and burning) cattail stands reduced the area of live vegetation present 5–22 months later. Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a marsh in Costa Rica found that plots in which cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed had a different overall plant community composition, over the following 15 months, to plots in which vegetation was not crushed. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired) in one freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that in plots where cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed (sometimes along with burning), plant species richness and diversity were not lower than in plots where vegetation was not crushed (or burned). Vegetation was surveyed 2–22 months after intervention. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation increased overall plant diversity, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. However, disking had no significant effect on plant richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that crushing (and burning) cattail stands reduced live vegetation cover 5–22 months later. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation typically had no significant effect on overall plant density, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. Herb abundance (1 study): One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported grass/sedge cover for up to four years after crushing mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions). Native/non-target abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a mimosa-invaded wetland in Australia reported that crushing mimosa stands did not reduce – and often increased – cover of non-mimosa vegetation one year later. One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported non-target vegetation cover for up to four years after crushing mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions). Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica found that plots in which cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed supported a greater abundance of individual plant species other than cattail, over the following 15 months, than plots in which vegetation was not crushed. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation increased the cover of two of five common native plant species, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3095Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in brackish/salt marshes.   ‘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%2F3096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3096Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in freshwater swamps. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide increased overall plant richness and diversity, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on native plant species richness, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies in the USA evaluated the effects, on tree/shrub abundance, of physically damaging canarygrass-invaded vegetation. One study found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on the density of non-planted tree seedlings, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. The other study found that managed plots (cut, disked and sprayed with herbicide) contained more non-planted tree seedlings than unmanaged plots, after 1–3 years. Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that plots in which canarygrass-invaded vegetation was managed (by disking, along with cutting and applying herbicide) contained at least as much non-canarygrass herb cover, after 1–3 years, to plots in which vegetation was not managed. Individual species abundance (1 study): One controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA reported that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide affected the abundance of some individual plant species – other than the target problematic species – two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3097Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants 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%2F3098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3098Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:06:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically or chemically remove oilWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically or chemically removing oil (but not vegetation) from contaminated marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3173Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:40:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing. All three studies were in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized) in greenhouses in the USA found that rubbing seeds of herbaceous plants with sandpaper before sowing had no significant effect on their germination rate. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that removing the sac-like seed coating before sowing typically increased, and did not reduce, the germination rate of sedges Carex spp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3376https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3376Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing.   ‘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%2F3377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3377Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage tree/shrub seeds before sowing: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing. The study was in a laboratory in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE          OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that cutting baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in half before sowing reduced their germination rate. Growth (1 study): The same study found that cutting baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in half before sowing had no significant effect on the height of surviving seedlings, 30 days after germination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3378Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage tree/shrub seeds before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing.   ‘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%2F3379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3379Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:23:06 +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