Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Seven of eight studies (including one replicated and two controlled studies) in Germany, Canada and the USA found that barrier fencing with culverts decreased amphibian road deaths, or decreased deaths provided that the fence length and material were effective. One found that low numbers of amphibians were diverted by barriers during breeding migrations. One replicated study in the USA found that barriers at least 0.6 m high were required to prevent green frogs and leopard frogs climbing over. Two studies in the Netherlands and USA found that treefrogs and 10% of common toads climbed over barrier fencing during breeding migrations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F756Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:23:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain cave gates to restrict public access Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing cave gates on bat populations. Six studies were in the USA and five studies were in Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study and one controlled study) in the Netherlands, the USA, Spain and Turkey found more or similar numbers of bats in caves and a bunker after gates were installed to restrict public access. The other study found fewer bats in caves after gates were installed. Two before-and-after studies in the USA and Spain found more bats within two caves after the size of the gated entrances were increased. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that installing cave gates resulted in population increases or decreased rates of decline for 13 of 20 colonies of Indiana bat. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that bats hibernating in a cave with a wall and gate over the entrance lost more body mass than bats in a nearby unmodified cave. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without cave gates. Behaviour change (4 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after and site comparison study in the USA found that bats at cave entrances circled more and entered caves less after gates were installed. One replicated study in the USA found that bats flew through gates with a funnel design more frequently than gates with a round bar or angle iron design. One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK found that fewer bats flew through cave gates when the spacing between horizontal bars was reduced. One before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly fewer bats emerged from a cave with a gate installed compared with a cave with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F999Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:07:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing the public of ways to reduce disturbance to bats in caves 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%2F1003https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1003Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:18:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species We found no evidence for the effects of inspecting bushmeat markets for illegal primate species 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%2F1474https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1474Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:59:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild primate meat We found no evidence for the effects of informing hunters of the dangers of wild primate meat 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%2F1480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1480Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins We found no evidence for the effects of installing ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins 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%2F1505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1505Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:06:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain gates at mine entrances to restrict public access Nine studies evaluated the effects of installing gates at mine entrances on bat populations. Eight studies were in the USA and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that fewer bat species entered mines after gates were installed. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or before-and-after studies in the USA and Australia found fewer bats in mines or at mine entrances after gates were installed. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that bat activity (relative abundance) remained stable or increased at five of seven gated mines, and decreased at two gated mines. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that 43 of 47 mines continued to be used 12 years after gates were installed, however bats abandoned four mines with ‘ladder’ design gates. One replicated study in the USA found that gate design and time since gate installation had varied effects on the presence of four bat species. Behaviour change (4 studies): Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies in the USA and Australia found that bats at mine entrances circled more and entered mines less after gates were installed. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Collisions with gates (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that up to 7% of bats at mine entrances collided with mine gates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1963Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:43:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about the negative impacts of bat hunting to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that after providing education about the ecological roles of bats fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in the future. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1973Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:22:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats One study evaluated the effects of informing local communities about disease risks from hunting and eating bat meat to reduce killing of bats on bat populations. The study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in Ghana found that fewer hunters intended to hunt bats in future after they were provided with education about the risks of diseases carried by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1974Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:23:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration One study examined the effects of installing a pump on or above the seabed in docks, ports, harbour, or other coastal areas to increase oxygen concentration on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Osaka Bay (Japan). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrate and fish species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Osaka Bay found that installing a pump on the seabed of a port to mix seawater and increase oxygen concentration led to an increase in combined invertebrates and fish abundance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2252Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:52:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammal movements of installing automatically closing gates at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in USA. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA found that vehicle-activated bump gates prevented white-tailed deer from entering enclosures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2441Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:22:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along railways One study evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along railways. This study was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in Norway found that fencing eliminated moose collisions with trains, except at the fence end. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2590Thu, 11 Jun 2020 09:13:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install acoustic wildlife warnings along roads Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing acoustic wildlife warnings along roads. One study was in Demark and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A before-and-after study in Denmark found that sound from acoustic road markings did not alter fallow deer behaviour. A controlled study in Australia found that Roo-Guard® sound emitters did not deter tammar wallabies from food and so were not considered suitable for keeping them off roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2592Thu, 11 Jun 2020 13:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along waterways We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along waterways. ‘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%2F2636https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2636Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:05:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform local communities and fishers about the negative impacts of hunting to reduce the killing of marine and freshwater mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing local communities and fishers about the negative impacts of hunting to reduce the killing of marine and freshwater mammals. ‘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%2F2787https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2787Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:24:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers at wild fisheries One study evaluated the effects on freshwater mammals of installing a barrier at a wild fishery. The study was in the Puntledge River (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in the Puntledge River found that installing a ‘cork line’ barrier did not deter harbour seals from feeding on salmon released from a hatchery. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2824Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:52:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform the public of ways to reduce disturbance to marine and freshwater mammals (e.g. use educational signs) One study evaluated the effects of informing the public of ways to reduce disturbance to marine and freshwater mammals. The study was in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One controlled study in the South Pacific Ocean found that tourist groups that observed information signs approached and disturbed New Zealand fur seals in similar numbers to those that did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2843https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2843Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:24:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform fishers of the impacts of derelict fishing gear on mammals to encourage responsible disposal We found no studies that evaluated the effects of informing fishers of the impacts of derelict fishing gear on mammals to encourage responsible disposal. ‘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%2F2891https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2891Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:53:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inoculate soil with mycorrhiza before seeding/planting Five studies examined the effects of inoculating soil with mycorrhiza before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Germany found that inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi and sowing seeds of grassland species did not alter plant species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (4 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that inoculating soil with mycorrhizal fungi before sowing seeds initially increased vegetation cover, but after three years, vegetation cover did not differ between areas that were and were not inoculated. One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs did not change the overall cover of herbaceous species. Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Germany found that adding mycorrhiza to the soil and sowing seeds of grassland species increased the abundance of target species that were considered a local conservation priority. One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs increased the cover of three of 38 native prairie species. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One controlled study in the USA found that adding soil microbes and nutrients when planting grass plugs did not change the cover of woody species. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not alter the biomass of three native grass and forb species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (1 STUDY) Height (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds increased the height of giant sacaton plants. Individual plant size (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not increase the biomass of giant sacaton plants. OTHER (1 STUDY) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding mycorrhizal fungi to soil before sowing seeds did not increase the emergence of giant sacaton plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3429Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:23:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers along roads/railways Seven studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers along roads/railways on reptile populations. Six studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a barrier fence, along with creating artificial nest mounds on the non-road side of the fence, and actively moving turtles off the road, fewer turtles were found dead on the road. One before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes along with a warning sign, fewer female diamondback terrapins were killed while crossing the road compared to before installation. One study in Canada found that dead snakes were found in the vicinity of a barrier fence up to 11 years after it was installed. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that following installation of a roadside barrier with nest boxes, fewer diamond-backed terrapin crossed the road compared to before installation. One replicated study in the USA found that after installing barriers, diamondback terrapins laid more nests on the marsh-side of the fence than on the road-side. The study also found that terrapins were less likely to breach barriers with smaller gaps at the bottom. One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises were effectively blocked by a concrete barrier. One replicated study in the USA found that taller fences were better at excluding painted and snapping turtles than lower ones. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in the USA found that desert tortoises interacted less with solid compared to non-solid barriers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3500Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:31:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways Sixteen studies evaluated the effects of installing barriers and crossing structures along roads/railways on reptile populations. Five studies were in the USA, three were in each of Spain, Australia and Canada and one was in each of France and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Survival (8 studies): Four of seven studies (including one randomized, controlled, before-and-after study and one review) in the USA, Australia, Canada and South Africa found that installing fencing and crossing structures did not reduce road mortalities of reptiles, and in one case the percentage of mortalities may have increased. Two studies found that areas with fencing and crossing structures had fewer road mortalities of turtles and overall reptiles. One study found that reptile road mortalities still occurred in in areas with roadside barrier walls and culverts. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, there were fewer road mortalities of eastern massasauga rattlesnakes. BEHAVIOUR (12 STUDIES) Use (12 studies): Six studies (including two replicated studies and one review) in Spain, France, the USA and Australia found that crossing structures with fencing that were not specifically designed for wildlife were used by lizards, snakes, tortoises, turtles and alligators and ophidians. One study also found that the addition of fencing around crossing structures did not affect the number of reptile crossings. Three studies (including one replicated and one before-and-after study and one review) in the USA and Spain found that wildlife crossing structures with fencing were used by gopher tortoises and 12 snake species, American alligators and lacertid lizards. One study also found that an American alligator did not use the wildlife crossing structure. Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in Canada found mixed effects of installing roadside fencing and culverts on road use by turtles and snakes. One replicated study in Spain found that use of different crossing structures depended on species group. One replicated study in Australia found that reptiles used wildlife underpasses or culverts for only 1% of road crossings. One replicated, before-and-after study in Canada found that following installation of tunnels and guide fencing, along with signs for motorists, fewer eastern massasauga rattlesnakes were found crossing the road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3507Tue, 07 Dec 2021 10:03:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install and maintain anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of installing and maintaining anti-predator systems around aquaculture that prevent entanglement of reptiles. ‘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%2F3532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3532Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:45:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install artificial dams in streams to raise water levels One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of installing artificial dams in streams to raise water levels. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that installing artificial dams in streams did not increase the survival of Appalachian brown butterfly eggs, caterpillars or pupae. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3954Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:51 +0100