Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burning brackish/salt marshes in different seasons or at different times.   ‘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%2F3075https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3075Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:45:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burning freshwater swamps in different seasons or at different times.   ‘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%2F3076https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3076Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:46:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change season/timing of prescribed burning: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of burning brackish/saline swamps in different seasons or at different times.   ‘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%2F3077https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3077Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:46:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin vegetation to prevent wild firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of thinning vegetation to prevent wild fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3078https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3078Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to prevent wild firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of raising the water level to prevent wild fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3079https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3079Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:56:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fire breaksWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of building fire breaks to protect these habitats.   ‘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%2F3080https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3080Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:58:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3081https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3081Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:59:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic speciesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of implementing biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species to 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%2F3082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3082Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:02:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): freshwater marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in freshwater marshes or swamps using unspecified or unclear methods. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes in which non-native plants were actively controlled had higher overall plant richness and diversity, after three years, than marshes in which non-native plants were not controlled. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes in which non-native plants were actively controlled had similar overall vegetation cover, after three years, to marshes in which non-native plants were not controlled. Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than those being controlled. The replicated, site comparison study in the USA found, for example, that spikerush Eleocharis cover was greater in marshes where non-native plants were actively controlled than where they were not controlled. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3083https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3083Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:04:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): brackish/saline marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in brackish/saline marshes or swamps using unspecified or unclear methods. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained a similar density of plant stems to nearby natural marshes Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than those being controlled. The replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously had similar cover of saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina patens to nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained vegetation of similar height to nearby natural marshes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3084Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:04:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (multiple interventions): freshwater marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in freshwater marshes or swamps using >3 combined interventions. The study was in Costa Rica. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that coverage of live vegetation stands was lower in a plot where southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years than in a plot where cattail had not been controlled. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that a plot in which southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years had greater plant species richness than a plot where cattail had not been controlled. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that a plot in which southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years had less live vegetation cover than a plot where cattail had not been controlled. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3087Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:52:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (multiple interventions): brackish/saline marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in brackish/saline marshes or swamps using >3 combined interventions.   ‘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%2F3088https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3088Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:52:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater marshes. Three studies were in the USA, one was in India and one was in France. Two of the studies in the USA were in the same site and shared some plots. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that physically removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh altered the overall plant community composition, over the following two years. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh increased overall plant species richness 1–2 years later. Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in wet meadows in the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no significant effect on overall plant species richness or diversity three years later. One of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst the other controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a temporary marsh in France reported that stripping all vegetation increased the number of habitat-characteristic plant species present in the following two years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes/wet meadows in India and the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no clear or significant effect on overall vegetation cover, nine months or three years later. Two of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst one controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Herb abundance (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in loosestrife-invaded wet meadows in the USA, one reported that removing all vegetation increased the cover of grass-like plants, and reduced the cover of forbs, three years later. The other study found that controlling regrowth of the invasive species – by physical removal and applying herbicide – had no significant effect on cover of grass-like plants or forbs after three years. Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of algae nine months later. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the target problematic species. For example, one before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of some other common herb species nine months later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in pepperweed invaded marshes in the USA found that physically removing pepperweed from plots sprayed with herbicide increased cover of native plants, over the following two years, compared to spraying with herbicide only. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study quantified the effect of this action on the cover of individual plant species, other than the target of control (see original paper for data). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3093Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from 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%2F3094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3094Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:18 +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: Manage water level to control problematic plantsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of managing water levels to control problematic plants in 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%2F3099https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3099Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:18:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add salt to control problematic plants: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly adding salt to control problematic plants in freshwater 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%2F3100https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3100Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:24:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add salt to control problematic plants: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly adding salt to control problematic plants in brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a salt marsh in the USA found that adding salt to control invasive beardgrass Polypogon monspeliensis had no significant effect on the height the dominant native glasswort Salicornia subterminalis. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3101Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:24:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add salt to control problematic plants: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly adding salt to control problematic plants in freshwater swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3102Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:25:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add salt to control problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly adding salt to control 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%2F3103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3103Sun, 04 Apr 2021 09:25:17 +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