Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce organisms to control problematic plants: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of introducing organisms (other than large vertebrate grazers) to control problematic plants 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%2F3129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3129Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:56:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce organisms to control problematic plants: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of introducing organisms (other than large vertebrate grazers) to control problematic plants in freshwater swamps. The study was in the USA. It involved introducing plants to compete with problematic plants. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a petunia-invaded floodplain swamp in the USA found that plots planted with wetland herbs had greater overall plant species richness than unplanted plots, over the year after planting. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that planted plots had greater native plant species richness than unplanted plots, over the year after planting. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3130https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3130Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:56:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce organisms to control problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of introducing organisms (other than large vertebrate grazers) to control problematic plants 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%2F3131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3131Mon, 05 Apr 2021 11:56:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild vertebrates: freshwater marshes Twelve studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild vertebrates from freshwater marshes. Six studies were in the USA. Three studies were in the Netherlands, two were in Australia and one was in Canada. The problematic vertebrates were birds in five studies, mammals in four studies, fish in one study, and mixed taxa in two studies. Two studies were conducted in the same area, but with different experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Canada found that after two years of excluding common carp Cyprinus carpio, the area of emergent vegetation was similar to the area expected based on the water level and historical data (when carp were present). Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in Australia found that areas fenced to exclude wild mammals typically had a similar overall plant community composition to open areas, over 14 years. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, paired, controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA and Australia reported that fencing to exclude wild mammals had no clear or significant effect on total plant species richness. One replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in the Netherlands found that fenced plots had higher emergent plant species richness than open plots, but similar diversity. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (7 studies): Seven replicated, controlled studies (three also randomized and paired) involving freshwater marshes in the USA, the Netherlands and Australia found that areas fenced to exclude wild vertebrates contained at least as much vegetation as open areas – and typically more. This was true for biomass (fenced > open in six of six studies), cover (fenced > open in two of two studies) and stem density (fenced similar to open in one of one studies). Vegetation was monitored over the winter immediately after fencing, or after 1–4 growing seasons. Individual species abundance (8 studies): Eight studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, seven replicated, controlled studies (four also paired, two also randomized) in freshwater marshes in the USA, the Netherlands and Australia found that dominant plant species had similar or greater abundance in areas fenced to exclude wild vertebrates, after 1–3 growing seasons, than in areas open to wild vertebrates. The dominant species included switchgrass Panicum virgatum, cordgrasses Spartina spp. and wild rice Zizania aquatica. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in the USA found that plots fenced to exclude Canada geese Branta canadensis contained taller wild rice Zizania aquatica than open plots in two of three comparisons. In the other comparison, after two years of goose control, fenced and open plots contained wild rice of a similar height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3132Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:15:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild vertebrates: brackish/salt marshes Seven studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild vertebrates from brackish/salt marshes. Five studies were in the USA. The other studies were in France and Sweden. In five studies, the problematic vertebrates were mammals. In the other two studies, they were birds. Two of the studies were conducted in the same area, but with different experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in brackish marshes in the USA found that fencing to exclude nutria Myocastor coypus had no significant effect on total plant species richness: fenced and open plots contained a similar number of plant species after 1–2 growing seasons. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in brackish marshes in the USA reported that excluding mammals typically had no significant effect on changes in plant species richness over two years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (5 studies): Five replicated, paired, controlled studies involving brackish marshes in France and the USA found that fencing to exclude medium-large vertebrates maintained or increased overall vegetation abundance. Vegetation cover or biomass were compared between fenced and open plots, after 1–2 growing seasons or over the winter after fencing. Individual species abundance (6 studies): Six studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. The six replicated, controlled studies in brackish and salt marshes in France, Sweden and the USA reported that fencing to exclude medium-large mammals typically maintained or increased the abundance of the dominant herb species over 1–4 growing seasons. Four of the studies found that fenced and open plots contained a similar abundance (biomass, cover or density) of cordgrasses Spartina spp. Three of the studies found that bulrushes Schoenoplectus spp./Scirpus spp. were more abundant in fenced than open plots. However, one study reported no clear difference in bulrush abundance between treatments and one study reported mixed effects depending on moisture levels and which mammals were excluded. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (3 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a brackish marsh in France found that overall vegetation height increased over two years in plots fenced to exclude medium-large mammals, compared to a decline in plots left open. Two replicated, controlled studies in brackish and salt marshes in Sweden and the USA found that vertebrate exclusion did not reduce (i.e. maintained or increased) the height of dominant herb species over 2–4 growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3133Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:16:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild vertebrates: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild vertebrates from 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%2F3134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3134Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:16:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild vertebrates: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild vertebrates from 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%2F3135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3135Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:16:39 +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: Exclude wild invertebrates using physical barriersWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding wild invertebrates from 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%2F3140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3140Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:24:23 +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: Clean waste water before it enters the environmentWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of cleaning waste water before releasing it into the environment.   ‘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%2F3142https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3142Mon, 05 Apr 2021 14:26:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Divert/block/stop polluted water inputsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of diverting/blocking/stopping polluted water inputs.   ‘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%2F3143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3143Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removedWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of slowing down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed.   ‘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%2F3144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3144Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:14:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. Three studies were in the USA and one was in China. Two studies were largely based on the same sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained a different overall plant community, after 1–20 years, to nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One of the studies also reported differences between marshes in restored vs degraded catchments. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater overall plant species richness than marshes within cropland, and similar richness to marshes within natural grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–20 years, than nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One before-and-after study of a lakeshore marsh in China reported that after revegetating a polluted input river (along with planting directly into the marsh), overall plant species richness increased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained more plant biomass than marshes within cropland, but also more plant biomass than marshes within natural grassland. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation typically had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants than marshes within cropland, and similar cover of these species to marshes within natural grassland. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands the USA found that wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater cover of hybrid cattail Typha x glauca, after 2–7 years, than nearby natural wetlands. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands in the USA found that parts of wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation created more visual obstruction, after 2–7 years, than the corresponding zone of nearby natural wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3145Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:14:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them.   ‘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%2F3146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3146Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them.   ‘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%2F3147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3147Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them.   ‘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%2F3148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3148Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use artificial barriers to block pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of using artificial barriers to block out pollution.   ‘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%2F3149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3149Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:42:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add clean water to reduce pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of diverting clean water into them to reduce pollution.   ‘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%2F3150https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3150Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:46:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce plants to marshes or swamps to control pollutionWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on other vegetation, of introducing plants to marshes or swamps with the primary aim of controlling pollution.   ‘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%2F3151https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3151Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:47:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas. The study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that the overall plant community composition (excluding rice) was similar in organically farmed fields and conventionally farmed fields, but different from the community in nearby natural marshes. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that organically farmed rice fields contained a similar average richness and diversity of wetland plants (at any single point in time) to conventionally farmed rice fields, although more species were recorded in the organic fields over the year of the study. Organically farmed rice fields had lower wetland plant richness and diversity than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that organically farmed fields contained more wetland plant biomass than conventionally farmed fields over the year of the study, but less wetland plant biomass than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3152https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3152Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas.   ‘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%2F3153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3153Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:23 +0100
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