Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dye baits to reduce seabird bycatchA randomised replicated and controlled study in Hawaii found that dying bait blue significantly reduced the number of attacks from albatross on baits being set.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F293Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:57:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Do birds take bait designed for pest control?Two studies, one randomised, replicated and controlled, from New Zealand and Australia found no evidence that birds took bait meant for pest control.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F395Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:47:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eco friendly biofouling prevention A replicated, controlled study in Australia found silicon coated nets accumulated less biofouling organisms which could be more easily removed than untreated nets. Two replicated, controlled trials found that a temperature of 50oC prevented the settlement of actinulae and hydroids on nets  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F937Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:24:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Domestication: sterility/triploidy A controlled, replicated study in Ireland found reduced return of stock but similar weight, length and condition of triploid salmon compared with diploid salmon.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F939Fri, 25 Oct 2013 15:26:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dry sludge in beds Two replicated trials in Canada found sludge drying beds removed phosphorus from freshwater fish farm sludge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F943Mon, 28 Oct 2013 12:43:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert bats to safe crossing points over or under roads/railways with plantings or fencing One study evaluated the effects of diverting bats using an artificial hedgerow on bat populations. The study was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that up to one fifth of lesser horseshoe bats within a colony flew along an artificial hedgerow to commute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F981Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:16:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them We found no evidence for the effects of not allowing people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them 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%2F1508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1508Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:06:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb vegetation One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that vegetation disturbance did not increase the abundance or species richness of specialist plants but increased the abundance of generalist plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1727Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:47:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb topsoil A controlled study in a former pine plantation in South Africa found that digging soil did not alter vegetation cover or the density of native plants. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that soil disturbance increased the abundance or species richness of specialist and generalist plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1728Thu, 23 Nov 2017 11:49:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/replace polluted water source(s) Three studies evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of diverting or replacing polluted water source(s). Two studies were in bogs and one was in a fen. Characteristic plants (1 study): One study in a fen in the Netherlands found that after a nutrient-enriched water source was replaced (along with other interventions to reduce pollution), cover of mosses characteristic of low nutrient levels increased. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after) in bogs in the UK and Japan reported that after polluting water sources were diverted (sometimes along with other interventions), Sphagnum moss cover increased. Both studies reported mixed effects on herb cover, depending on species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1779Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:14:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drain/replace acidic water Two studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of draining/replacing acidic surface water. Both studies were in fens. Vegetation cover (2 studies): Two controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that draining acidic water had mixed effects on cover of Sphagnum moss and herbs after 4–5 years, depending on the species and whether moss was also removed. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that draining and replacing acidic water increased plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1791Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:18:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate farmers, land managers and local communities about the benefits of bats to improve management of bat habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating farmers, land managers and local communities about the benefits of bats to improve management of bat habitats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2040https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2040Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:35:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of educating farmers, local communities and pest controllers to reduce indiscriminate culling of vampire bats. ‘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%2F2044https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2044Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:41:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes 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%2F2087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2087Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:59:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using domestic animals to drive away wild mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in India found that using domestic elephants to drive wild Asian elephants away from villages did not reduce the probability of elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:48:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert shipping routes We found no studies that evaluated the effects of diverting shipping routes on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2754Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:57:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop saltwater inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping saltwater inputs to marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3042https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3042Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:15:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop freshwater inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping excessive freshwater inputs to marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3043https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3043Thu, 01 Apr 2021 15:18:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop polluted water inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping polluted water inputs.   ‘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%2F3143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3143Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater marshes. Both studies were in the USA – in the same region but different sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots typically contained more wetland plant species than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots had greater cover of wetland plants than unploughed plots after one growing season – but not after two. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that ploughed plots had much greater cover of cattails Typha than unploughed plots after two growing seasons. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3226Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study of brackish/salt marshes in the USA reported that marshes disked every spring for at least six years (and drawn down during spring/autumn) shared only 24–34% of plant species with marshes that were not disked (or drawn down). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that overall plant species richness and diversity were similar in managed marshes (disked every spring and drawn down during spring/autumn, for at least six years) and unmanaged marshes (neither disked nor drawn down). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3227Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of freshwater swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3228https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3228Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Disturb soil/sediment surface: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of disturbing the surface of brackish/saline swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3229Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:04:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Drill seed rather than seeding by hand Five studies examined the effects of drill seeding rather than sowing by hand on grassland vegetation. The studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (3 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (two of which were paired) in the USA found that sowing seeds with a seed drill did not alter plant species richness. The other study found mixed effects. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (4 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (3 studies): One of three replicated, controlled studies (two of which were randomized and one paired) in the USA found that sowing seeds with a seed drill increased the density of two sown grass species compared to sowing by hand. The two other studies found that in most cases sowing seeds with a seed drill led to no change or a reduction in the abundance of sown plants compared to hydroseeding or sowing by hand. Grass abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that sowing grassland seeds with a seed drill increased the abundance of warm-season grass species compared to sowing by hand. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3410https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3410Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:23:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Diversify ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops Two studies evaluated the effects of diversifying ground vegetation and canopy structure in the habitat around woody crops on reptile populations. One study was in Puerto Rico and the other was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with natural ground cover had higher reptile species richness and diversity than those with bare ground, but groves planted with a single species as ground cover had similar richness and diversity as those with bare ground. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Puerto Rico found that two of three lizard species were less abundant in shade-grown coffee plantations than in sun-grown plantations. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Spain found that olive groves with ground cover had more reptiles than groves with bare ground. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3526Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:18:17 +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