Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter birds from landing on shellfish culture gear using spikes on oyster cagesA replicated and controlled study from Canada found that significantly fewer birds landed on oyster cages with spikes attached, compared to control cages. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F256https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F256Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:00:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter birds from landing on shellfish culture gear by suspending oyster bags under waterA replicated and controlled study from Canada found that significantly fewer birds roosted on oyster bags suspended 6 cm below the water, compared with non-submerged bags. Birds roosted on bags suspended 3 cm below the water as frequently as control bags. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F257https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F257Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:31:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter or prevent birds from landing on toxic pools We found no evidence for the effects of deterring or preventing birds from landing on toxic pools '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%2F450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F450Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:28:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using radar We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from wind turbines using radar 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%2F967https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F967Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:25:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using ultrasound Four studies evaluated the effects of deterring bats from wind turbines using ultrasound on bat populations. The four studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (one with a before-and-after trial in the second year) in the USA found mixed results. In the first year of one study, 21-51% fewer bats were killed at turbines with an ultrasonic deterrent fitted than at control turbines, but in the second year, from 2% more to 64% fewer bats were killed at turbines with ultrasonic deterrents fitted. One study found that using an ultrasonic deterrent emitting a constant or pulsed signal had mixed effects on the fatality rates of three bat species. One study found that using ultrasonic deterrents resulted in fewer fatalities for two of three bat species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One paired sites study in the USA found fewer bats flying near one of two wind turbines with an ultrasonic deterrent compared to turbines without, but the effect of the deterrent overall was not significant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F968Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:30:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using lighting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using lighting 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%2F982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F982Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:27:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Destroy habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for primates We found no evidence for the effects of destroying habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for primate 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%2F1441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1441Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:13:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Detect & report dead primates and clinically determine their cause of death to avoid disease transmission One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years when dead chimpanzees were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in French Guiana found that most translocated white-faced sakis survived over four months when dead sakis were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs did not survive over five years despite the fact that dead lemurs were clinically examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that the population size of mountain gorillas where dead animals were examined to determine the cause of death, alongside other interventions, increased by 168% over 41 years. One before-and-after, site comparison study in Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas survived over four years when dead individuals were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Two studies, including a before-and-after, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most reintroduced pygmy slow lorises either died or disappeared despite the fact that dead lorises were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:58:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from turbines using low-level ultraviolet light 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%2F1958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1958Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:13:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter bats from roads/railways using ultrasound We found no studies that evaluated the effects of deterring bats from roads/railways using ultrasound 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%2F1968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1968Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:10:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) to regulate impactful maritime activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area 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%2F2223https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2223Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:59:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit commercial fishing Three studies examined the effects of prohibiting commercial fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), and one in the Caribbean Sea (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison) in the South Pacific Ocean found that after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster abundance inside the park did not increase over the 12 years after implementation, and abundance was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. Crustacean condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that over the 12 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, the biomass of legal-size lobsters inside the park did not increase. One of two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the South Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea found bigger lobsters in an area closed to commercial fishing for an unspecified amount of time compared to a fished area. The second study found that 10 years after implementing a marine park prohibiting commercial fishing but allowing the recreational harvest of lobsters, lobster size was similar inside the park and outside where fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that 80% of the lobster population occurring in a protected area (year of designation unspecified) where commercial fishing was prohibited remained in the unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2225Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:59:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit dredging One study examined the effects of prohibiting dredging in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Firth of Lorn (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years had different combined invertebrate and fish community composition compared to unprotected dredged sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One paired, replicated, site comparison study in the Firth of Lorn found that sites inside a protected area that had been prohibiting dredging for approximately 2.5 years typically had greater combined cover of bryozoans and hydroids (combined) compared to unprotected dredged sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2228Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:06:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area with a zonation system of activity restrictions Thirteen studies examined the effects of designating a marine protected area with a zonation system of activity restrictions on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Mexico), three in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy), one in the Central Pacific Ocean (Ecuador), three in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK), one in the Indian Ocean (Australia), and one in the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the combined invertebrate and algae species community composition was different at a site prohibiting all fishing compared to sites where some fishing occurs, after six years. Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting nearly all fishing had similar invertebrate species richness to sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundances of specific invertebrate groups varied between sites prohibiting nearly all fishing and sites where fishing was mostly allowed, after two years. Crustacean abundance (7 studies): Three of seven site comparison studies (two replicated) in the Caribbean Sea, the Central Pacific Ocean, and in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance and/or biomass of spiny lobsters increased in a zone closed to all/commercial fishing and were greater than in a zone where fewer fishing restrictions occurred, after four to 20 years depending on the study. One found that sites closed to all fishing had higher abundances of spiny lobsters and slipper lobsters after eight to ten years compared to fished sites. Two found that sites closed to all fishing for six to seven years had more European lobsters than sites where potting was allowed. And one found that abundances of European lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs, after one to four years, varied with the levels of protection. Crustacean condition (4 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, and in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing for seven years or commercial fishing (duration unspecified) had bigger lobsters compared to fished areas. One found that the sizes of lobsters, velvet crabs, brown crabs and spider crabs varied with the levels of protection, and one study found that the size of spiny lobsters decreased similarly in an area prohibiting all fishing and in an area with fewer restrictions 14 to 20 years after designation of the protected area. Two studies undertaken in the same area found conflicting effects of prohibiting all fishing for six to seven years on disease and injury of lobsters. Echinoderm abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, at a site prohibiting all fishing for 17 to 18 years, abundances of two species of sea urchins were higher than at sites allowing the recreational fishing of purple sea urchins. The other one found similar abundance of purple sea urchins inside fully protected sites, sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs, and unprotected fished sites outside the protected area after five years. Echinoderm condition (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, sites prohibiting all fishing had bigger sea urchins compared to sites where some restricted urchin harvest occurs and compared to unprotected fished sites outside the protected area, after either four years or 17 to 18 years. Mollusc abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, abundance of blacklip abalone was higher in sites that had been prohibiting all fishing for five years compared to those prohibiting commercial fishing only. Two site comparison studies in the Caribbean Sea found that inside marine protected areas with a zonation system, abundances of adult queen conch increased over time in a zone closed to all fishing and were greater than in zones with fewer restrictions, but abundances of juvenile conch did not differ or vary differently between zones, after either five to eight years or 14 to 20 years. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the size of queen conch decreased similarly in the area prohibiting all fishing and in the area with fewer restrictions, after 14 to 20 years. Sponge abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found that inside a marine protected area with a zonation system, the cover of sponges Cliona was higher at a site prohibiting all fishing for six years compared to sites where some fishing occurred. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Crustacean behaviour (1 study): One site comparison study in the Caribbean Sea found that, inside a marine protected area with a zonation system (year of designation unspecified), 80% of the lobster population occurring in the unfished area remained in the protected unfished area, and thus remained protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2230Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:21:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit static fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and prohibiting static fishing gear 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%2F2231https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2231Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:39:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and set a no-anchoring zone We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and setting a no-anchoring zone 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%2F2235https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2235Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:42:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of scallops We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area and prohibiting the harvest of scallops 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%2F2236https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2236Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:42:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of conch One study examined the effects of prohibiting the harvesting of conch in marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the North Atlantic Ocean (British Overseas Territories). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest of conch had more conch after five years compared to a fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a marine protected area prohibiting the commercial harvest of conch had smaller adult conch after five years compared to a fished area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2237https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2237Tue, 22 Oct 2019 15:44:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit the harvesting of sea urchins Two studies examined the effects of prohibiting the harvest of sea urchins in marine protected areas on their populations and/or other subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Echinoderm abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had higher adult sea urchin biomass six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Echinoderm reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had higher urchin population reproductive biomasses, but similar reproductive indices six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins had bigger adult sea urchins six to 33 years after their designations, compared to harvested areas. Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas prohibiting the harvest of red sea urchins (year of designation unspecified) had more juvenile red abalone and juvenile flat abalone compared to harvested areas, and that juvenile abalone abundance was positively related to sea urchin abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2238https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2238Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:12:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area without setting management measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement We found no studies that evaluated the effects of designating a Marine Protected Area without setting management measures, usage restrictions, or enforcement 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%2F2241https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2241Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of deterring predation of livestock by mammals by having people close by to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in Kenya recorded fewer attacks by predators on livestock in bomas when people were also present but the presence of people did not reduce predator attacks on grazing herds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2444Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:28:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on predatory mammal activities of herding livestock using adults instead of children to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A site comparison study in Cameroon found that using adults to herd livestock reduced losses through predation relative to that of livestock herded solely by children. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2445https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2445Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:32:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects of using shock/electronic dog-training collars to deter predation of livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All five studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA, found that electric shock collars reduced livestock predation or bait consumption by wolves, whilst one found that they did not reduce wolf bait consumption. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars reduced the frequency of attacks by captive coyotes on lambs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:37:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate zones for migration of marshes or swamps as climate changesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of designating zones for migration of marshes or swamps under climate change. ‘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%2F3185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3185Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:10:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate protected area Four studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of designating protected areas involving marshes or swamps. There were two studies in China, one in Malaysia and one in Puerto Rico. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (4 studies): Two studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in China reported that the area of marsh, swamp or unspecified wetland in protected areas declined over 6–12 years. One replicated, site comparison study in Puerto Rico reported that protection had no clear effect on mangrove forest area, with similar changes over 25 years in protected and unprotected sites. One study of a mangrove forest in Malaysia reported that it retained at least 97% of its forest area over 98 years of protection as a forest reserve. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (2 studies): One replicated study in China reported “degradation” of the landscape structure of protected wetlands over 12 years. One before-and-after study in China reported fragmentation of wetland habitat within a protected area, but that this meant its structure became more like it had been 10–40 years previously. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3384Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:40:54 +0100