Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islandsA single replicated and randomised, paired sites study from the UK found that plots with predator control had increased density and fledgling success of breeding birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F384Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:17:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for seabirds A before-and-after study from New Zealand found an increase in a tern population following intensive trapping of invasive mammals. A before-and-after study from Canada found increases in tern fledging success following gull control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F385Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for wildfowl Six out of seven studies, mostly from North America found higher reproductive success of ducks when mammalian predators were removed. A before-and-after study found higher survival of captive-bred brown teal Anas chlorotis following feral cat Felis catus control. One meta-analysis from the USA and Canada found that ducks on sites with mammalian predator removal did not have higher reproductive success and trends in reproductive success were no more positive than on sites without predator control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F386Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:53:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for gamebirds Four controlled studies in Europe found increased populations or productivity of grouse and partridges on sites with predator removal. One study tested multiple interventions simultaneously. A fifth replicated UK study found no increase in grouse densities or reproductive success on sites with gamekeepers, compared to those without. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F387Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:25:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for railsA single study from the USA found more California clapper rails Rallus longirostris obsoletus on sites with higher numbers of foxes removed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F388Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:35:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for cranesA single trial from the USA found that greater sandhill cranes Grus canadensis tabida had higher hatching and fledging success in years with predator control, compared to years without control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F389Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:37:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for waders Three out of four controlled studies in the UK and the USA found some evidence for higher reproductive success or lower predation rates for waders in areas or years with predator removal, although one UK study found that only three of six species investigated had increased reproductive success in years with predator removal. Predators removed were carrion crows Corvus corone, gulls Larus spp., red foxes Vulpes vulpes and cats Felis catus. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F390Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:40:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for parrotsA replicated, controlled trial in New Zealand found increased kaka Nestor meridionalis nesting success and lower predation at sites with mammal predator removal than at unmanaged sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F391Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:05:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predators not on islands for songbirds A before-and-after study from New Zealand found that a reintroduced population of New Zealand robins Petroica australis declined without predator control and increased with rat poisoning. Two UK studies, one non-experimental, found increased populations of some species following control of bird and mammal predators. One replicated, controlled study from New Zealand found lower New Zealand robin survival in areas where rodent bait was broadcast, but no difference with controls when dispensers were used. Six studies from New Zealand, Australia, UK found increased nest success or survival (in one case with artificial nests) following bird and mammal predator control. One randomised, replicated and controlled study from the USA found no difference in nest survival in a site with mammalian predator removal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F392Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:08:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove habitat-altering mammals Four studies from the Azores and Australia found that seabird populations increased following the eradication of European rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus or other species, although in three studies there were several other interventions used as well. Two studies from Australia and the Madeira archipelago, Portugal, found that seabird populations’ productivities increased following rabbit and house mouse Mus musculus eradications, with several other interventions used in the Australian study. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F431Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:21:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control predatory mammals and birds (foxes, crows, stoats and weasels) A total of nine individual studies from France and the UK (including five replicated controlled studies and a systematic review) looked at the effects of removing predators on birds. Three studies found controlling predatory mammals or birds (sometimes alongside other interventions) increased the abundance or population size of some birds. One of these studies from the UK found numbers of nationally declining songbirds increased on a site where predators were controlled, but there was no overall difference in bird abundance, species richness or diversity between predator control and no-control sites. Five studies (two replicated and controlled, two before-and-after trials) from the UK found some evidence for increased productivity, nest or reproductive success or survival of birds following bird or mammal predator control (sometimes alongside other interventions). A randomized, replicated, controlled study found hen harrier breeding success was no different between areas with and without hooded crow removal. A global systematic review including evidence from European farmland found that reproductive success of birds increased with predator removal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F699https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F699Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:08:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control rodents One controlled study in New Zealand1 found that rodent control decreased native plant species richness and did not affect total plant species richness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1232https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1232Mon, 23 May 2016 11:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild herbivores We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of controlling populations of wild herbivores. ‘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%2F1861https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1861Tue, 12 Dec 2017 14:17:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control non-native/problematic plants to restore habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling invasive or problematic plants to restore habitat. '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%2F2530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2530Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:20:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): freshwater marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in freshwater marshes or swamps using unspecified or unclear methods. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes in which non-native plants were actively controlled had higher overall plant richness and diversity, after three years, than marshes in which non-native plants were not controlled. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes in which non-native plants were actively controlled had similar overall vegetation cover, after three years, to marshes in which non-native plants were not controlled. Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than those being controlled. The replicated, site comparison study in the USA found, for example, that spikerush Eleocharis cover was greater in marshes where non-native plants were actively controlled than where they were not controlled. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3083https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3083Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:04:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (specific intervention unclear): brackish/saline marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in brackish/saline marshes or swamps using unspecified or unclear methods. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained a similar density of plant stems to nearby natural marshes Individual species abundance (1 study): One study quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than those being controlled. The replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously had similar cover of saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina patens to nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in salt marshes in the USA found that plots in which common reed Phragmites australis had been controlled 4–10 years previously contained vegetation of similar height to nearby natural marshes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3084Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:04:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (multiple interventions): freshwater marshes or swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in freshwater marshes or swamps using >3 combined interventions. The study was in Costa Rica. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that coverage of live vegetation stands was lower in a plot where southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years than in a plot where cattail had not been controlled. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study reported that a plot in which southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years had greater plant species richness than a plot where cattail had not been controlled. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that a plot in which southern cattail Typha domingensis had been controlled for >15 years had less live vegetation cover than a plot where cattail had not been controlled. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3087https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3087Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:52:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control problematic plants (multiple interventions): brackish/saline marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling problematic plants in brackish/saline marshes or swamps using >3 combined interventions. ‘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%2F3088https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3088Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:52:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in freshwater marshes. Both studies were in the USA. In one study, the problematic animals were mammals and in the other study they were birds. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, overall vegetation cover increased. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, cover of two plant species characteristic of target seepage slope vegetation increased. Herb abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported that over two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa, total forb cover increased. Individual species abundance (2 studies): One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that killing and scaring Canada geese Branta canadensis reduced their impacts on the density of wild rice Zizania aquatica: its density became similar in plots open to geese and plots fenced to exclude geese. One before-and-after study of marshy vegetation in the USA reported mixed responses of individual plant species to two years of trapping and shooting feral swine Sus scrofa. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that killing and scaring Canada geese Branta canadensis reduced their impacts on the height of wild rice Zizania aquatica: its height became similar in plots open to geese and plots fenced to exclude geese. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3136Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:09:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in brackish/salt marshes. ‘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%2F3137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3137Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in 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%2F3138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3138Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild vertebrates: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild vertebrates in 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%2F3139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3139Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:10:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control populations of wild invertebratesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of controlling populations of wild invertebrates in 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%2F3141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3141Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:25:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3439Wed, 18 Aug 2021 15:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control or remove non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling or removing non-native or nuisance species on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3441Fri, 20 Aug 2021 10:02:25 +0100