Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging on bat populations. Two studies were in the Neotropics, one study was in Italy and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Trinidad found that the composition of bat species differed between selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar bat diversity in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found similar overall bat activity (relative abundance) in selectively logged and conventionally logged forest. One review of 41 studies in the Neotropics found that reduced impact logging had a smaller effect on bat abundance than conventional logging. One replicated, site comparison study in Italy found greater bat activity at two of three sites that used selective logging techniques to open up the forest canopy rather than leaving the canopy intact. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F989Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:41:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects of using shelterwood cutting instead of ‘gap release’ cutting on bat populations. The study was in Australia. We found no studies that evaluated the effects of shelterwood cutting instead of clearcutting. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One site comparison study in Australia found more Gould’s long-eared bats roosting in remnant trees within forests that had been shelterwood harvested than in forests harvested using gap release methods. Comparisons were not made with clearcutting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F990Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:27:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1011https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1011Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:46:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ultraviolet filters on lights One study evaluated the effects of using ultraviolet filters on lights on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that hedges lit with ultraviolet filtered lights had higher soprano pipistrelle, but not common pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) than hedges lit with unfiltered light. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1020Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:00:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting One site comparison in Sierra Leone found that primate densities were higher in forest that had been logged at low intensity than in a forest logged at high intensity. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that the number of lemurs increased following selective logging. One site comparison study in Uganda found that primate densities were similar in forest that had been logged at low intensity and forest logged at high intensity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:26:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting 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%2F1488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:33:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat We found no evidence for the effects of working inward from barriers or boundaries to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat 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%2F1498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1498Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:51:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use We found no evidence for the effects of using prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use 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%2F1516https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1516Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:16:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and bacterial diseases to primates One study in Uganda found that a confiscated young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being handled by caretakers wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and visitors wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:58:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. We found no evidence for the effects of wearing gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. 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%2F1548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:41:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities 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%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use red lighting rather than other lighting colours Three studies evaluated the effects of red lighting on bat populations. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that red lighting resulted in higher activity (relative abundance) for one of three bat species groups than white or green lighting. One site comparison study in the Netherlands found that culverts illuminated with red light had similar activity of commuting Daubenton’s bats as culverts illuminated with white or green light. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that more soprano pipistrelles emerged from a roost when lit with red light than when lit with white light, but no difference was found between red and blue lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2021Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:06:28 +0000