Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed. BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES) Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514Fri, 05 Jun 2020 10:17:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under railways Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under railways. Two studies were in Spain, one was in each of Australia, Canada and the Netherlands and one reviewed literature from a range of countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation in or around passages under railways or roads of mammals using those passages. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Five studies, in Spain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, found that tunnels, culverts and underpasses beneath railways were used by a range of mammals including rodents, rabbits and hares, carnivores, marsupials, deer and bears. One of these studies found that existing culverts were used more than were specifically designed wildlife tunnels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ledges in culverts under roads/railways Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing ledges in culverts under roads or railways. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Portugal found that under-road culverts with ledges were used more than culverts without ledges by two of five mammal species. A before-and-after study in the USA found that installing ledges within under-road culverts did not increase the number or diversity of small mammal species crossing through them, and only one of six species used ledges. A study in the USA found that ledges in under-road culverts were used by nine of 12 small mammal species and ledges with access ramps were used more often than those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2523Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:50:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over roads/railways Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over roads or railways. Seven studies were in Canada, three were in Spain, three were in Australia, two were in Sweden, one each was in the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia and the USA, and three (including two reviews) were conducted across multiple countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): Four studies (including three before-and-after studies), in Canada, Sweden and Australia, found that overpasses (in combination with roadside fencing) reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. In two of these studies, data from overpasses and underpasses were combined for analysis. BEHAVIOUR (21 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Nineteen studies, in North America, Europe and Australia, found that overpasses were used by mammals. A wide range of mammals was reported using overpasses, including rodents and shrews, rabbits and hares, carnivores, ungulates, bears, marsupials and short-beaked echidna. A review of crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. A global review of crossing structures (including overpasses) found that all studies reported that the majority of crossings were used by wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install pole crossings for gliders/flying squirrels Seven studies evaluated the effects on gliders/flying squirrels of installing pole crossings. Six studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using artificial road crossing structures did not suffer high predation rates when doing so. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (6 studies): Six studies (five replicated), in Australia and the USA, found that poles were used for crossing roads by squirrel gliders, sugar gliders and Carolina northern flying squirrels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2546Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:20:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install rope bridges between canopies Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of install rope bridges between canopies. Eight studies were in Australia, one was in Brazil and one in Peru. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using rope bridges did not suffer high predation rates when doing so. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including three replicated studies and a site comparison), in Australia, Brazil and Peru found that rope bridges were used by a range of mammals. Seven of these studies found between three and 25 species using rope bridges, one found that that they were used by squirrel gliders and one that they were used by mountain brushtail possums and common ringtail possums but not by koalas and squirrel gliders. One of the studies found that crossing rates were higher over the canopy bridges than at ground level. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:50:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing one-way gates or other structures to allow wildlife to leave roadways. All seven studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Two before-and-after studies (one replicated), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with one-way gates reduced deer-vehicle collisions. One of two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated, controlled), in the USA, found that barrier fencing with escape gates along roads with one or more underpasses reduced moose-vehicle collisions, whilst the other found no reduction in total mammal road casualty rates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in USA found that earth escape ramps reduced mammal road mortalities. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One of two studies (one replicated) in the USA, found that one-way gates allowed mule deer to escape when trapped along highways with barrier fencing, whilst the other found that a small proportion used one-way gates. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that earth escape ramps were used more often than were one-way escape gates to enable deer to escape highways with barrier fencing. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that barrier fencing with escape gates and underpasses facilitated road crossings by a range of mammals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2558Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:28:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install wildlife warning reflectors along roads Fifteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife warning reflectors along roads. Nine studies were in the USA, three were in Austalia, two were in Germany and one was in Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (10 studies): Five of eight controlled or before-and-after studies in the USA and Germany found that wildlife warning reflectors did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. Two studies found that vehicle-deer collisions were reduced by reflectors and one found that collisions were reduced in rural areas but increased in suburban areas. A before-and-after study in Australia found that when warning reflectors were installed (along with speed restrictions, reflective wildlife signs, rumble strips, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet) vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls, decreased. A review of two studies in Australia found mixed responses of mammal road deaths to wildlife warning reflectors. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three of four studies (including three controlled studies), in the USA, Denmark and Germany, found that wildlife warning reflectors did not cause deer to behave in ways that made collisions with vehicles less likely (such as by avoiding crossing roads). The other study found that deer initially responded to wildlife reflectors with alarm and flight but then became habituated. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that one of four reflector model/colour combinations increased fleeing behaviour of bush wallabies when lights approached. The other combinations had no effect and none of the combinations affected red kangaroos. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2591Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install wildlife crosswalks One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife crosswalks. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that designated crossing points with barrier fencing did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2593Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:27:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install wildlife exclusion grates/cattle grids Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing wildlife exclusion grates or cattle grids. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that steel grates largely prevented crossings by deer whilst two found that they did not prevent crossings by deer and elk or black bears. In one of the studies, only one of three designs prevented crossings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2594Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:35:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce legal speed limit One study evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the legal speed limit. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that speed limit reductions and enforcement did not reduce vehicle collisions with bighorn sheep or elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2596Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:03:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install traffic calming structures to reduce speeds One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing traffic calming structures to reduce speeds. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll population re-established in the area. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that following installation of barriers to create a single lane, rumble strips, reflective wildlife signs, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and production of an educational pamphlet, vehicle collisions with Tasmanian devils, but not eastern quolls decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2598https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2598Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:10:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers. ‘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%2F2599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:16:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove roadkill regularly to reduce kill rate of predators/scavengers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing roadkill regularly to reduce the kill rate of predators/scavengers. ‘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%2F2601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2601Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/maintain road verges as small mammal habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects of retaining or maintaining road verges as small mammal habitat. ‘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%2F2604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2604Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:49:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence. Four studies were in the USA one was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when wildlife signs were installed along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (6 studies): Three of five studies (including four controlled and three before-and-after studies), in the USA and Canada, found that warning signs did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. The other two studies found that warning signs did reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. A before-and-after study in Australia found that wildlife signs along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, reduced collisions between vehicles and Tasmanian devils but not eastern quolls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, before-and-after), in the USA, found that signs warning of animals on the road reduced vehicles speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:22:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using road lighting to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled and one before-and-after), in the USA, found that road lighting reduced vehicle collisions with moose. The other study found that road lighting did not reduce vehicle collisions with mule deer. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2614Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:16:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:24:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alternative de-icers on roads We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using alternative de-icers on roads. ‘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%2F2616https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2616Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:06:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide food/salt lick to divert mammals from roads or railways Three studies evaluated the effects of providing food or salt licks to divert mammals from roads. One study was in the USA, one was in Norway and one was a review of studies from across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that intercept feeding reduced mule deer road deaths along two of three highways in one of two years. A replicated, site comparison study in Norway found that intercept feeding reduced moose collisions with trains. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A review of feeding wild ungulates in North America, and Europe found that feeding diverted ungulates away from roads in one of three studies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2617Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:14:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use reflective collars or paint on mammals to reduce collisions with road vehicles We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using reflective collars or paint on mammals to reduce collisions with road vehicles. ‘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%2F2619https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2619Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:31:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using wildlife decoys to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. ‘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%2F2620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2620Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:32:37 +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