Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to 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%2F3679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3679Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:00:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of offering reptile-related eco-tourism to improve behaviour towards reptiles. One study was in the USA and one was in St Kitts and Nevis. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One study in the USA reported that 32% of respondents to a survey said they would have gone to look for a nesting turtle if they had not been able to join a supervised turtle watch. One study in St Kitts and Nevis found that people who attended a leatherback turtle tour reported that they would be more conscientious of how their behaviours on the beach affected sea turtles. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3680Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:01:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage local communities in conservation activities Six studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging local communities in reptile conservation. One study was in each of the Philippines, Mozambique, Brazil, Costa Rica, Australia and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where community-based management of fishing practices was implemented had a higher abundance of river turtles than areas with no community-based management. Reproductive success (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one site comparison study) in Mozambique and Costa Rica found that after involving the community in monitoring of nesting activity, fewer sea turtle eggs were lost to poaching than before projects began. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that when management of a saltwater crocodile egg harvest passed to an Indigenous management group, the number of eggs collected and hatching success of those eggs was lower than when it was run by an external company. Survival (2 studies): One study in the Philippines found that after rural community members were paid a small incentive to protect Philippine crocodile sanctuaries combined with an education and awareness campaign, fewer crocodiles were killed than before community engagement. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no killing of adults was recorded. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas where communities were engaged in conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:15:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use education and/or awareness campaigns to improve behaviour towards reptiles and reduce threats Seven studies evaluated the effects of using education and/or awareness campaigns to improve behaviour towards reptiles and reduce threats. One study was in each of Costa Rica, India, the Philippines, Dominica, the USA, Saint Kitts and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 studies): One before-and-after study in the Philippines found that following a communication, education, and public awareness campaign, the population of Philippine crocodiles increased. Reproductive success (1 study): One study in Costa Rica found that during a community-based education programme the percentage of leatherback turtle nests lost to poaching decreased. Survival (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies in the Philippines and Dominica found that following education and awareness campaigns, one in combination with use of road signs, human killing of Philippine crocodiles decreased and there were fewer road-deaths of lesser Antillean iguanas compared to before the campaigns began. One study in India reported that following education and awareness campaigns in combination with creating a network of local snake experts, local snake experts reported that they intervened to save 276 non-venomous snakes from being killed over six years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (3 studies): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas with conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. One study in Saint Kitts found that attending an educational summer camp on turtle conservation had mixed effects on reported behaviours in relation to sea turtles of attendees and their parents/guardians, and mixed effects on whether they took part in conservation activities after the camp. One study in the USA found that providing an information leaflet did not decrease the number of hotel rooms that left lights on at night compared to when no leaflet was provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3682Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:30:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Two studies evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals on reptile populations. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized studies (including one before-and-after and one controlled study) in Australia found that cats wearing collar mounted neoprene bibs, with or without a bell, caught a similar number of combined reptiles and amphibians compared to cats not wearing them. The other study found that cats wearing collar mounted ruffs brought home fewer combined reptiles and amphibians than cats not wearing them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3683https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3683Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:42:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of keeping domestic cats indoors at times when reptiles are most active. ‘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%2F3684https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3684Fri, 10 Dec 2021 15:51:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leash or restrict domestic dog movements in reptile habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of leashing or restricting domestic dog movements in reptile 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%2F3685https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3685Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:07:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Sea turtles Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on sea turtle populations. Six studies were in the USA, two were in each of Turkey and Australia, and one was in each of Greece, Qatar, Indonesia, Cape Verde and Costa Rica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Reproductive success (15 studies): Eight of 14 studies (including 10 replicated, controlled studies) in the USA, Turkey, Qatar, Indonesia, Cape Verde, Australia and Costa Rica found that sea turtle, loggerhead, hawksbill and artificial sea turtle nests with artificial covers were predated less frequently than nests with no covers. Three studies found that covering sea turtle nests had mixed effects on predation, depending on predator species or year. One study found that loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers were predated more frequently than nests with no covers. One study found that olive ridley turtle nests with and without artificial covers were all predated. The other study found that predation attempts of green and hawksbill turtle nests with artificial covers were similar compared to nests with no cover, but that predation success was affected by the cover design. Three studies also found that sea turtle and loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers had higher hatching success than nests with no covers. One study also found that loggerhead turtle nests with artificial covers had similar hatching and emergence success compared to nests with no covers. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that covering loggerhead turtle nests had mixed effects on hatching success compared to nests with no covers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3686https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3686Fri, 10 Dec 2021 16:10:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Seven studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked and softshell turtle populations. Five studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Galápagos and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Reproductive success (7 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the Galápagos and the USA found that Galápagos giant tortoise nests surrounded by rock-walled corrals and bog turtle nests covered with cages were predated less frequently than unprotected nests. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Canada and the USA found that nests of painted and snapping turtles and bog turtles covered with cages had similar hatching success compared to nests left uncovered. One of two replicated controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Canada and the USA found that painted and snapping turtle nests protected by three different cage types were predated a similar amount. The other study found mixed effects of different cage designs on predation rate of artificial nests at a diamondback terrapin nesting site. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that diamondback terrapin nests covered by a nest box with an electrified wire were predated less frequently than nests under a box with no wire. One before-and-after study in the USA found that over half of eggs from bog turtle nests covered with cages in an area grazed by cattle hatched successfully. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that diamondback terrapin nests covered with cages had hatching success of 55–93%, and 83–100% of uncaged nests were predated. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3687https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3687Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:08:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Snakes & lizards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on snake and lizard 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%2F3688https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3688Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:26:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on crocodilian 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%2F3689https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3689Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:28:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers: Tuatara We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using artificial nest covers on tuatara 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%2F3690https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3690Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:29:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation by camouflaging nests Two studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation by camouflaging nests on reptile populations. One study was in the USA and one was in Costa Rica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that Ouachita map turtle nests that were disguised by sweeping with a broom were predated at a similar rate as unswept nests. One before-and-after, site comparison study in Costa Rica found that camouflaged (details of method not provided) olive ridley turtle nests had similar hatching and emergence success compared to nests moved to a hatchery. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3691https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3691Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:31:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using visual deterrents One study evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using visual deterrents on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that a similar number of loggerhead turtle nests marked with red flags were predated compared to those marked only with wooden stakes. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3692https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3692Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:37:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation by creating new nesting sites One study evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation by creating new nesting sites on reptile populations. This study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that predation rate of artificial Hermann’s tortoise nests in newly created nesting sites was similar to the predation rate in natural nesting sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3693https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3693Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:39:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using chemical deterrents Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using chemical deterrents on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of Spain and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (4 studies): Three of four controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in Spain, the USA and Australia found that a similar number of artificial Hermann’s tortoise nests, diamondback terrapin nests and loggerhead turtle nests that had chemical deterrents, pepper powder or chilli powder applied were predated compared to nests with no deterrent. The other study found that fewer loggerhead turtle nets that had habanero pepper powder applied to the surface were predated than nests with no pepper powder, or nest with pepper powder below the surface. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3694Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:08:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect nests and nesting sites from predation using conditioned taste aversion One study evaluated the effects of protecting nests and nesting sites from predation using conditioned taste aversion on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that a similar number of loggerhead turtle nests were predated in areas of the beach where artificial nests containing unpalatable eggs were deployed (to condition taste aversion) compared to areas with no artificial nests with unpalatable eggs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3695Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:18:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native reptile competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native reptile competitors on reptile 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%2F3696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3696Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:25:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control non-native/invasive plants Four studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling non-native/invasive plants on reptile populations. Two studies were in Australia and one was in each of South Africa and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush were sprayed with herbicide had similar reptile species richness compared to unsprayed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas where invasive Bitou bush or para grass were controlled had a similar abundance of reptiles and combined reptiles and amphibians compared to areas with no control. One study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas with invasive control compared to unmanaged areas. The other study found that removing invasive non-native Sahara mustard had mixed effects on the abundance of Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizards and flat-tailed horned lizards. Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in South Africa found that in areas where an invasive plant was removed, nesting activity by Nile crocodiles increased more than in places with no removal. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3697Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:27:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters Seven studies evaluated the effects of removing or controlling invasive or problematic herbivores and seed eaters on reptile populations. Three studies were in Australia and one study was in each of Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA and the Galápagos. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two studies (one site comparison study and one controlled study) in the USA and Australia found that areas where feral horses had been removed had higher lizard and snake species richness than sites with horses. The other study found mixed effects of fencing in combination with removal of invasive mammals on reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Four of seven studies (including four controlled studies) in Mauritius, New Zealand, the USA, Australia and the Galápagos found that controlling European rabbits, grey kangaroos or herbivores and predators, in some cases using fencing, had mixed effects on the number of sightings or abundance of different reptile species. Two studies found that when both rabbits and Pacific rats or feral goats were removed the abundance of lizards or the percentage of giant tortoises that were juveniles. The other study found that areas where feral horses had been removed had similar lizard and snake abundance compared to sites with horses. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3698Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:35:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control toxic invasive amphibians (e.g. cane toads, Asian toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing or controlling toxic invasive amphibians on reptile 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%2F3699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3699Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:52:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use conditioned taste aversion to prevent carnivorous reptiles from eating toxic invasive cane toads Two studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using conditioned taste aversion to prevent carnivorous reptiles from eating toxic invasive cane toads. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in Australia found that survival of yellow-spotted goannas subjected to conditioned taste aversion was higher at one of two sites than those that were not treated. The other study found that survival of bluetongue skinks given a high dose was higher than those given a low dose, but similar to skinks receiving no dose. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that yellow-spotted goannas subjected to conditioned taste aversion were less likely to eat cane toads than those that were not treated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3700Fri, 10 Dec 2021 18:54:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dispose of waste from pet reptile enclosures carefully to prevent spread of disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of disposing of waste from pet reptile enclosures carefully to prevent spread of disease. ‘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%2F3701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3701Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:00:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance of reptiles for early treatment/action to prevent spread of disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of carrying out surveillance of reptiles for early treatment/action to prevent spread of disease. ‘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%2F3702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3702Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:02:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize equipment to prevent spread of disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of sterilizing equipment to prevent spread of disease. ‘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%2F3703https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3703Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:03:54 +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