Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation One controlled before-and-after study from the UK found more bird territories and species on a stretch of river modified to allow inundation of river edges compared to a channelized section of river. One study from Belgium found that a combination of mowing and flooding resulted in increased plant species richness in meadow plots, but infrequently flooded, mown plots had more plant species than frequently flooded, non-mown plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:17:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove midstorey from savannasA controlled study in Argentina found that in summer, but not overall, a control area had higher bird abundance and species richness than an area where shrubs were removed. There were also differences in community composition between treatments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F336https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F336Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:54:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove ectoparasites from feathers to increase survival or reproductive success A replicated and controlled study in the UK found that red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus treated with spot applications had lower tick and disease burdens and higher survival than controls, whilst birds with impregnated tags had lower tick burdens only. A replicated ex situ study in Hawaii found that CO2 was the most effective way to remove lice from feathers, although this treatment did not kill the lice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F437Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:30:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove ectoparasites from nests to increase survival or reproductive success Six of the seven studies that investigated infestation rates found lower rates in nests treated for ectoparasites, one (that used microwaves to treat nests) did not find fewer parasites. Two studies from the USA found higher survival or lower abandonment in nests treated for ectoparasites, whilst seven studies from across the world found no differences in survival, fledging rates or productivity between nests treated for ectoparasites and controls. Two studies from the USA and the UK found that chicks from nests treated for ectoparasites were in better condition than those from control nests. Four studies found no such effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F438Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:20:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive output A replicated study from Mauritius found that harvesting entire clutches appeared to increase Mauritius kestrels Falco punctatus productivity more effectively than removing individual eggs as they were laid. A replicated study over 30 years in Canada (Kuyt 1996) found that wild whooping cranes Grus americana reproductive success was higher for nests with one or two eggs removed than for control nests. A single study from the USA found that removing bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus eggs from wild nests for hand-rearing did not appear to greatly affect the wild population. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F477Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:27:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish by drying out ponds One before-and-after study in the USA found that draining ponds to eliminate fish increased numbers of amphibian species. One replicated, before-and-after study in Estonia found that pond restoration, which sometimes included drying to eliminate fish, and pond creation increased numbers of species and breeding populations of common spadefoot toads and great crested newts compared to no management. Three studies (including one review) in the UK and USA found that pond drying to eliminate fish, along with other management activities in some cases, increased breeding success of frog or newt species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F826https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F826Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:56:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish by catching Four studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in the USA found that removing fish by catching them significantly increased abundance of salamanders or frogs or increased recruitment, survival and population growth rate of cascades frog. One before-and-after study in the UK found that fish control had no significant effect on great crested newt populations and fish remained or returned within a few years. One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that fish control did not increase green toad breeding success and fish were soon reintroduced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F827https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F827Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:51:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control fish using rotenone Three studies (including one replicated study) in Sweden, the UK and USA found that eliminating fish using rotenone increased numbers of amphibian species, abundance and recruitment or newt populations. One review in Australia, the UK and USA found that fish control, which included using rotenone, increased breeding success for four amphibian species. Two replicated studies in Pakistan and the UK found when rotenone was applied, many frogs died and a small number of newts showed symptoms of negative effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F828Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:25:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested products We found no evidence of the effects of removing nitrogen and phosphorus using harvested products on forests. '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%2F1166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1166Thu, 19 May 2016 08:54:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove human food waste that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans We found no evidence for the effects of removing human wastes that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans, 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%2F1561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1561Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter One randomized, controlled study in the UK found that removing leaf litter did not alter the presence of heather. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1688Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove oil from contaminated peatlands We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of removing oil from contaminated peatlands. ‘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%2F1788https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1788Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:17:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other problematic species One study examined the effects of removing or capturing non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that, regardless of the method used, removing invasive corals reduced the cover of native zoanthids. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that the effect of removing invasive corals on the cover of native sponges varied with the removal method used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:23:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Baltic Proper (Sweden). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:43:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove litter from the marine environment We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing litter from the marine environment 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%2F2204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2204Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:15:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove mid-storey vegetation in forest One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing mid-storey vegetation in forest. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal species richness increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after removing mid-storey vegetation, mammal abundance increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2480Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:15:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove flood water We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing flood water. ‘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%2F2557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2557Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:52:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control competitors Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:11:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or cleaning up oil pollution following a spill 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%2F2870https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2870Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:29:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove litter from marine and freshwater environments We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing litter from marine and freshwater environments 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%2F2895https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2895Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:59:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove individual marine and freshwater mammals exhibiting aggressive behaviours that may limit population recovery One study evaluated the effects of removing individual marine mammals exhibiting aggressive behaviours that may limit population recovery. The study was in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that after removing aggressive male Hawaiian monk seals, the survival of adult female Hawaiian monk seals increased. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that fewer female Hawaiian monk seals were injured after aggressive male Hawaiian monk seals were removed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2929https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2929Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:09:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove leaf litter before seeding/planting Three studies examined the effects of removing leaf litter before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of Germany, Belgium and Hungary. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Hungary found that removing leaf litter before sowing seeds did not increase the cover of either of two sown grass species. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that removing leaf litter before planting did not alter the biomass of ragged robin and marsh birdsfoot trefoil transplants in most cases. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (one of which was also randomized and paired) in Germany, Belgium and Hungary found that removing leaf litter, and in one study also removing vegetation, before sowing seeds had mixed effects on the number of seedlings of sown plant species. The other study found no change in the number of seedlings of either of two grass species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3414Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of removing invasive plant species to improve habitat within development footprints. ‘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%2F3483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3483Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:10:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments One study evaluated the effects of removing garbage and other solid waste from terrestrial, aquatic and coastal environments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3564Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:52:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or change turbine lighting to reduce insect attraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of removing or changing turbine lighting to reduce insect attraction. ‘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%2F3843https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3843Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:06:37 +0100