Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the use of clover leys on farmlandWe have captured no evidence that increasing the use of clover leys can enhance wild bee populations. One replicated trial in Germany showed that fields planted with a white clover grass mixture do not attract solitary bees to nest preferentially on site. A trial in Switzerland showed that if white clover is mowed during flowering, injuries and mortality of bees can be reduced by avoiding the use of a processor attached to the mower. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F16https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F16Thu, 20 May 2010 08:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of natural or semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no evidence demonstrating the effects of restoring natural or semi-natural habitat on bee diversity or abundance in neighbouring farms. '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%2F6https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F6Thu, 20 May 2010 15:31:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscapeFive studies monitored the effects of the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme at a landscape scale, including three replicated site comparisons. Of these, one found an increase in numbers of birds of some species. Two found no effect on the number of bird species or population densities of farmland birds. Three studies found mixed effects, with some species or groups of species increasing and others decreasing.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:48:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape Of four studies captured, one, a replicated and controlled paired sites study from Australia, found that farms with plantings of native vegetation held more species than those without. The effect was smaller than that explained by variation in the amount of natural habitat remaining on farms. A replicated study from Switzerland found more species in areas under the Ecological Compensation Area scheme than areas not under it. A before-and-after study from Switzerland found that the populations of three bird species increased after an increase in the amount of land under the Ecological Compensation Scheme. This study found that three species were more found more than expected on Ecological Compensation Scheme land. Another replicated study from Switzerland found that some habitats held more birds if they were close to ECA habitat but that the amount of Ecological Compensation Scheme in an area had no impact on population densities. A small study from the UK found no effect of habitat creation on grey partridge populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase water turbidity to reduce fish predation by birdsA randomised trial in France found that little egret Egretta garzetta foraging efficiency was lower in turbid water than clear. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F252https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F252Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:45:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA and five studies were in Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:07:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves on bat 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%2F1003https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1003Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:18:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Infect tree seedlings with mycorrhizae We found no evidence for the effect of inoculating tree seedlings with mycorrhizae. '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%2F1160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1160Wed, 18 May 2016 15:40:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species We found no evidence for the effects of inspecting bushmeat markets for illegal primate species 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%2F1474https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1474Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:59:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild primate meat We found no evidence for the effects of informing hunters of the dangers of wild primate meat 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%2F1480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1480Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins We found no evidence for the effects of installing ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins 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%2F1505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1505Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:06:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape on bat 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%2F1938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:18:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) Twelve studies evaluated the effects of increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) on bat populations. Ten studies were in the USA and two were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (12 studies): Ten of 12 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’), or increasing the cut-in speed along with preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other two studies found that increasing cut-in speeds did not reduce bat fatalities, but sample sizes were small or treatments were applied for short periods only. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:54:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to restrict public access Nine studies evaluated the effects of installing gates at mine entrances on bat populations. Eight studies were in the USA and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that fewer bat species entered mines after gates were installed. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or before-and-after studies in the USA and Australia found fewer bats in mines or at mine entrances after gates were installed. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) remained stable or increased at five of seven gated mines, and decreased at two gated mines. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that 43 of 47 mines continued to be used 12 years after gates were installed, however bats abandoned four mines with ‘ladder’ design gates. One replicated study in the USA found that gate design and time since gate installation had varied effects on the presence of four bat species. Behaviour change (4 studies): Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies in the USA and Australia found that bats at mine entrances circled more and entered mines less after gates were installed. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Collisions with gates (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that up to 7% of bats at mine entrances collided with mine gates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:43:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that after providing education about the ecological roles of bats fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in the future. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:22:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in future after they were provided with education about the risks of diseases carried by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:23:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the mesh size of pots and traps One study examined the effects of increasing the mesh size of pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River system (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Corindi River system found that traps designed with larger mesh appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps of smaller mesh. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2148Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:20:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration One study examined the effects of installing a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Osaka Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrate and fish species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrates and fish abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:52:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities and fishers about the negative impacts of hunting to reduce the killing of marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing local communities and fishers about the negative impacts of hunting to reduce the killing of marine and freshwater mammals. ‘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%2F2787https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2787Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:24:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase visual detectability of fishing gear for mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of increasing the visual detectability of fishing gear for mammals. One study was in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Canada) and one was in Cape Cod Bay (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the Gulf of St. Lawrence found that minke whales approached white ropes more slowly and changed their bearing more when approaching black ropes compared to ropes of other colours. One study in Cape Cod Bay found that simulated ropes painted red or orange were detected by North Atlantic right whales at greater distances than green but not black ropes, and more whales collided with green ropes than the other three rope colours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2805Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:16:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to marine and freshwater mammals (e.g. use educational signs) One study evaluated the effects of informing the public of ways to reduce disturbance to marine and freshwater mammals. The study was in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One controlled study in the South Pacific Ocean found that tourist groups that observed information signs approached and disturbed New Zealand fur seals in similar numbers to those that did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2843https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2843Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:24:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform fishers of the impacts of derelict fishing gear on mammals to encourage responsible disposal We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing fishers of the impacts of derelict fishing gear on mammals to encourage responsible disposal. ‘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%2F2891https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2891Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:53:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inoculate soil with mycorrhiza before seeding/planting Five studies examined the effects of inoculating soil with mycorrhiza before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Germany found that inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi and sowing seeds of grassland species did not alter plant species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi before sowing seeds initially increased vegetation cover, but after three years, vegetation cover did not differ between areas that were and were not inoculated. One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs did not change the overall cover of herbaceous species. Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Germany found that adding mycorrhiza to the soil and sowing seeds of grassland species increased the abundance of target species that were considered a local conservation priority. One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs increased the cover of three of 38 native prairie species. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs did not change the cover of woody species. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the biomass of three native grass and forb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (1 STUDY) Height (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds increased the height of giant sacaton plants. Individual plant size (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not increase the biomass of giant sacaton plants. OTHER (1 STUDY) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not increase the emergence of giant sacaton plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3429Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:23:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing and maintaining anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles. ‘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%2F3532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3532Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:45:17 +0000