Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming We captured no evidence for the effects of food labelling schemes on bird 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%2F170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F170Sun, 20 May 2012 13:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Foster eggs or chicks of bustards with wild conspecificsA small study in Saudi Arabia found that a captive-bred egg was successfully fostered to a female in the wild.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F513Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:18:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores A replicated laboratory and field study in South America found that the South American weevil caused more feeding lesions on floating pennywort than on any other plant species, but field results found that the weevil did not reduce floating pennywort biomass.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1123https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1123Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:27:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Biological control using native herbivores No evidence was captured on biological control of floating pennywort using native herbivores. '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%2F1124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1124Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:28:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides No evidence was captured on biological control of floating pennywort using fungal-based herbicides. '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%2F1125https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1125Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:29:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Physical removal A study in Western Australia found that following a two-week program of physical removal of floating pennywort, the rate of growth exceeded the rate of removal. A study in the UK, found that removal using a mechanical digger and monthly picking by hand greatly reduced the cover of floating pennywort but did not completely eradicate it. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1126Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:33:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated study in the UK found that the herbicide 2,4-D amine applied at 4.2 kg/ha achieved near to 100% mortality, compared with the herbicide glyphosate applied at 2.2 kg active ingredient/ha (without an adjuvant) which achieved  negligible mortality. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:36:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A before-and-after study in Western Australia found that a combination of cutting followed by glyphosate chemical treatment, removed floating pennywort. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:39:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Use of hydrogen peroxide A controlled, replicated pilot study in The Netherlands, found that hydrogen peroxide sprayed on potted floating pennywort plants resulted in curling and transparency of the leaves when applied at the highest tested concentration (30%), but this was still not sufficient to kill the plant.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:41:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Use of liquid nitrogen No evidence was captured on the use of liquid nitrogen for control of floating pennywort. '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%2F1130https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1130Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:43:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Flame treatment A controlled, replicated, pilot experiment in 2010 in The Netherlands, found that flame treatments of 1, 2 or 3 seconds had a significantly negative and progressive impact on floating pennywort, and a 3 second repeat treatment after 11 days proved fatal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Excavation of banks No evidence was captured on the effects of excavation of banks using a sod-cutter or ‘turf-cutter’ to remove floating pennywort. '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%2F1132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1132Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Environmental control (e.g. shading, reduced flow, reduction of rooting depth, or dredging) No evidence was captured on the potential for environmental control of floating pennywort using shading, increased flow, reduction of rooting depth to below 1 metre, or dredging. '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%2F1133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1133Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:48:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of floating pennywort. '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%2F1134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1134Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:49:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets Seven studies examined the effects of adding one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Six were in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands, UK), two in the Thames estuary (UK), one in the English Channel (UK), and one in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel and the North Sea found that fitting nets with either one of seven designs of square mesh escape panels (varying mesh size and twine type) led to higher survival rates of invertebrates that escaped the nets compared to unmodified nets. Unwanted catch overall abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria  found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones reduced the unwanted catch of invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Two found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish depending on the panel design. Two found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels  caught similar amounts of unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to unmodified nets. OTHERS (7 STUDIES) Commercially targeted catch abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria, found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones caught similar amounts of all or most commercial species to unmodified nets. Three found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the catch of all or most commercial species depending on the species and/or panel design. One found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels reduced the catch of commercial species compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:33:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets Two studies examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid but not an ‘upward’-oriented grid reduced the weight of small unwanted catch and that both grid orientations caught fewer unwanted large sponges, and that nets fitted with two sizes of grids reduced the number and biomass of unwanted blue swimmer crabs and giant cuttlefish caught, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid or a small grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets, but those fitted with an ‘upward’-oriented grid or a large grid caught similar amounts to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:46:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and use square mesh instead of a diamond mesh at the codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and using a square mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of three dominant groups of unwanted invertebrate catch species, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of the commercially targeted western king prawn, due to reduced catch of less valuable smaller-sized prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared to standard trawl nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer commercial shellfish, and fewer but more valuable commercially important fish, compared to standard trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:59:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames on pots and traps One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames on 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 fitted with escape frames appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps without escape frames. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2146Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps We found no studies that evaluated the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2147Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:18:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames and increase the mesh size of pots and traps One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames and 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 fitted with escape frames and designed with larger mesh appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps without escape frames and smaller mesh. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2149Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:21:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of fitting vehicles with ultrasonic warning devices. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Shu Roo warning whistles did not reduce animal-vehicle collisions for eastern grey kangaroos or red kangaroos BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated), in the USA and Australia, found that ultrasonic warning devices did not deter mule deer, eastern grey kangaroos, red kangaroos or white-tailed deer from roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2606Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:50:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit rigid (as opposed to mesh) escape panels/windows to a trawl net One study examined the effects of fitting rigid escape windows/panels to trawls for fish escape on marine fish populations. The study was in the Baltic Sea.  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction of unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that fitting rigid escape windows in a section of trawl net reduced the catch of unwanted flatfish compared to a trawl net without escape windows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2719Tue, 05 Jan 2021 15:50:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Flood cropland when fallow to conserve freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on freshwater marsh vegetation, of flooding cropland during fallow seasons or years. The study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that flooding rice fields during their fallow period affected the overall community composition of wetland plants, but that the nature of the effect depended on when fields were surveyed. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that flooding rice fields during their fallow period had no significant effect on wetland plant species richness per site and per survey, although fewer species were recorded in the flooded fields over the year of the study. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2954Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:44:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Flood cropland when fallow to conserve brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on brackish/salt marsh vegetation, of flooding cropland during fallow seasons or years.   ‘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%2F2955https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2955Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:54:21 +0000
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