Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect large native treesA study in degraded savannah in Minas Gerais, Brazil showed that the stingless bee species Melipona quadrifasciata selectively nested in the protected cerrado tree Caryocar brasiliense, evidence that protecting this species from logging or wood harvesting has helped to conserve stingless bees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F34https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F34Thu, 20 May 2010 09:28:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitats Four studies (two replicated) from Europe found population increases following habitat protection, more positive population trends in protected habitats, compared with outside, or with increases amounts of protected habitats. A literature review reported that a large number of cranes (Gruidae) of seven species used nature reserves in China, whilst a replicated, randomised and controlled study from Argentina found that some guilds of birds were found at higher species richnesses in protected forests, some at higher densities, and that some showed no differences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158Tue, 15 May 2012 13:48:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review,  examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows A replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common redshank populations increased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands found that there were more waders or birds overall on specially managed meadows or 12.5 ha plots including several management interventions than on conventional fields, but one study found that these differences were present before the management scheme was introduced and the other found no differences between individual fields under different management. A replicated study from the UK found that common snipe decreased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows and a replicated before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that wader population trends on specially managed meadows were no different to those on conventionally-managed meadows. A replicated study from the UK found that lapwing populations on three of four water meadow sites managed for conservation did not have high enough productivity to maintain population levels. All three sites were judged deficient in at least one management category.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:37:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations Six out of seven before-and-after studies and two literature reviews/meta-analyses found evidence that legislation protects bird populations. Five studies in Europe, Indonesia and across the world found increased population levels of vultures, raptors, cranes and cockatoos following protective legislation (amongst other interventions). However, one found populations of raptors declined soon after. The literature review also found two cases of limited or no impact of legislation. Two before-and-after studies from Denmark and the USA and Canada and the meta-analysis found increased estimated survival of falcons, ducks and parrots with stricter protection, but not necessarily population-level responses. A meta-analysis found decreased harvest of parrots in areas with stricter protection regimes, but a before-and-after study found no evidence for reduced shearwater harvest with legislation.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F271Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:57:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use education programmes and local engagement to help reduce persecution or exploitation of species Five out of six studies from across the world found increases in bird populations or decreases in mortality following education programmes. In all but one case, education was one of several interventions employed. A replicated before-and-after study from Canada also found that there was a significant shift in local peoples’ attitudes to conservation and exploited species following educational programmes. One study from Venezuela found no evidence for decreases in yellow-shouldered parrot Amazona barbadensis poaching following an educational programme in local schools. The authors argue that the benefits would probably be seen later in the project.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F274Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:28:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide legal protection of forests from development We found no evidence for the effects of providing legal protection of forests from development. '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%2F1169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1169Thu, 19 May 2016 09:37:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect primate habitat A review on the status of rhesus monkeys and grey snub-monkeys in China found that primate numbers increased or no more individuals were killed after the area was legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that Tana River red colobus monkey and crested mangabey numbers decreased despite the area being declared legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in China found that Hainan gibbon numbers increased by 34% over nine years after the area was declared legally protected. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years despite being reintroduced to a legally protected area, alongside other interventions yet they reproduced and surviving offspring partly compensated adult mortality. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most central chimpanzees and lowland gorillas reintroduced to areas that received legal protection, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–5 years. One controlled, site comparison study in Mexico found that black howler monkeys in protected areas had lower stress levels than individuals living in unprotected forest fragments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect plant species affected by gathering We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting the species affected by gathering on shrublands. '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%2F1612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1612Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:27:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland habitat on shrublands. '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%2F1674https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1674Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:21:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect peatlands Five studies evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of legally protecting them: two of tropical peat swamp forest, two of unspecified peatlands and one of a bog. Peatland habitat (3 studies): Two studies in Indonesia reported that peat swamp forest was lost from within the boundaries of national parks. However, one of these studies was a site comparison and reported that forest loss was greater outside the national park. One before-and-after study of peatlands in China reported that peatland area initially decreased, but then increased, following legal protection. Plant community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in a bog in Denmark reported that the plant community compositon changed over 161 years of protection. In particular, woody plants became more abundant. Vegetation cover (1 study): One site comparison study in a peatland in Chile found that a protected area had greater vegetation cover (total, herbs and shrubs) than an adjacent grazed and moss-harvested area. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Denmark reported that the number of plant species in a protected bog fluctuated over time, with no clear trend. One site comparison study in a peatland in Chile found that a protected area had lower plant richness and diversity (but also fewer non-native species) than an adjacent grazed and harvested area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1796Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:26:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for mammals Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia, the USA, Tanzania, Brazil, Nepal and India and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Three studies (including two site comparison studies), in Zambia, the USA and Nepal, found that populations of red lechwe, black bears and one-horned rhinoceros grew following site protection or were higher than in adjacent non-protected sites. One of three site comparison studies, in Tanzania, Brazil and India, found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas. One study found that populations of only three of 11 species were higher on protected than on unprotected land whilst the third study found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:56:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of a mammal species. One study each was in Norway, the USA, South Africa, Poland and Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study), in the USA and Poland, found that prohibiting hunting led to population increases of tule elk and wolves. Survival (3 studies): A before-and-after study in Norway found that restricting or prohibiting hunting did not alter the number of brown bears killed. A study in Zimbabwe reported that banning the hunting, possession and trade of Temminck’s ground pangolins did not eliminate hunting of the species. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that increasing legal protection of leopards, along with reducing human-leopard conflict by promoting improved animal husbandry, was associated with increased survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:05:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of marine and freshwater mammal species Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting hunting of marine mammal species. One study was in each of the Kattegat and Skagerrak seas (Denmark and Sweden), the North Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere, the South Pacific Ocean (Australia), the North Atlantic Ocean (Greenland) and the Southern Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five studies (including three before-and-after studies) in the Kattegat and Skagerrak Seas, the South Pacific Ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean and the Southern Ocean found that after hunting was prohibited, the abundance of harbour seals and humpback whales increased over 7–30 years. The other study found that numbers of mature male sperm whales did not differ significantly before or 31 years after hunting was prohibited. One review in the North Atlantic Ocean, North Pacific Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere found significant increase rates for 10 of 12 baleen whale populations during 7–21 years after legislation to prohibit hunting was introduced. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2780https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2780Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:09:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for marine and freshwater mammals Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for marine and freshwater mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), the North Sea (UK) and the Port River estuary (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a population of Mediterranean monk seals increased during eight years after the islands they inhabited were legally protected. One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that a population of bottlenose dolphins was estimated to be a similar size before and after part of its range was protected. Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that the survival rate of Hector’s dolphins was higher after a coastal area was legally protected than before. One before-and-after study in the Port River estuary found that after the area became legally protected a similar number of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin strandings were recorded compared to before protection, but the number of strandings caused by humans decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:29:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect marine and freshwater mammal species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting marine and freshwater mammal species. ‘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%2F2923https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2923Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:38:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of livestock grazing: brackish/salt marshes Nine studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing livestock grazing intensity in brackish/salt marshes (without stopping grazing entirely). Five studies were in Germany. Four studies were in the Netherlands. Livestock were cattle, sheep or horses. There was overlap in the sites used in two of the German studies and three of the Dutch studies. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled study of a salt marsh in Germany reported that the total vegetated area was slightly larger in plots grazed at a lower intensity, for eight years, than plots grazed at a higher intensity. Community types (4 studies): Two controlled studies of salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported similar coverage, or similar change in coverage, of plant community types under different grazing intensities. Two studies of brackish and salt marshes in the Netherlands and Germany reported that reducing grazing intensity (along with other interventions) affected coverage of plant community types. In one study, the precise effect varied with environmental conditions. Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after study on a salt marsh in the Netherlands found that plots grazed under different grazing intensities experienced a similar turnover of plant species over six years, and had a similar overall plant community composition after six years. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies on salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands found that plots grazed at lower intensities never had greater plant species richness, after 1–22 years, than plots grazed at higher intensities. One controlled study on a salt marsh in Germany found that paddocks grazed at low intensity had greater plant species richness, after 16–18 years, than paddocks grazed at higher intensities. Two studies of salt marshes in the Netherlands found that plant species richness increased over 6–14 years of reduced grazing intensity (sometimes along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One controlled study on a salt marsh in Germany reported that overall vegetation cover was greater in lightly and moderately grazed paddocks than in a heavily grazed paddock – with the highest cover of all in the moderately grazed paddock. Individual species abundance (6 studies): Six studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, three studies (including two controlled) on salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported that plots under different grazing intensities supported a similar abundance (frequency or cover) of saltmarsh grass Puccinellia maritima – but with a tendency for greater abundance under lower intensities. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (6 studies): Six controlled studies (three also replicated and paired) in salt marshes in Germany and the Netherlands reported that vegetation was taller on average (or contained taller vegetation patches) in areas that had been grazed at lower intensities. However, in one of the studies, this was only true for canopy height: understory grasses were a similar height under all grazing intensities. One of the replicated, paired, controlled studies found that, after two summers, variation in vegetation height between patches was similar under all grazing intensities. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2971Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:16:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes. One study was in the Netherlands and one was in Tunisia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (2 study): One before-and-after study of a lakeshore brackish/salt marsh in Tunisia reported an increase in coverage of bulrush-dominated vegetation relative to salt marsh vegetation over three years after modifying a canal to retain water in the marsh. One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported increased coverage of pioneer succulent plant communities, and reduced coverage of short-grass communities, over approximately 10 years following abandonment of the drainage system (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness increased over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that some individual plant species became more common over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). These included saltbush Atriplex prostrata and seablite Suaeda maritima. Some other species became less common, including creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera and common cordgrass Spartina anglica. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3027Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance: brackish/salt marshes Ten studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using prescribed fire to maintain or restore disturbance in brackish/salt marshes. Seven studies were in the USA. Two studies were in Argentina but based on the same experimental set-up. One study was in Guadeloupe. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in Argentina reported that burned plots had a different overall plant community composition to unburned plots, five months after burning. The same was true in one of two comparisons 17 months after burning. Overall richness/diversity (5 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled) in brackish marshes in the USA and Guadeloupe reported that burning had no significant effect on overall plant species richness, measured approximately 10 weeks to 2 years after the latest burn. In one of the studies, the effects of burning and legal protection were not separated. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in brackish marshes in the USA reported that burning typically had no significant effect on changes in plant species richness over two years. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in Argentina reported that burned plots had greater overall plant species richness and diversity than unburned plots, 5–17 months after burning. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One study of a coastal marsh in the USA reported that over three years after restoration – involving a prescribed burn along with restoration of tidal exchange – the number of salt-tolerant plant species increased, whilst the number of freshwater plant species decreased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (5 studies): Three replicated studies (one also randomized, paired, controlled) in brackish marshes in the USA found that overall vegetation biomass was lower in burned than unburned plots, 10 weeks or 1 year after the latest burn. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in alkali marshes in the USA found that a single prescribed burn had no significant effect on overall vegetation biomass: there was a similar change over two years in burned and unburned plots. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a salt marsh in Argentina found that the effect of a single prescribed burn on the frequency of seedlings depended on the time since burning, but that seedlings were more frequent in burned than unburned plots after 9–12 months. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One study of a coastal marsh in the USA found that over three years after restoration – involving a prescribed burn along with restoration of tidal exchange – the cover of salt-tolerant plant species increased, whilst the cover of freshwater plant species decreased. Individual species abundance (7 studies): Seven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, five studies quantified the effects of prescribed burning on the abundance of dominant cordgrasses Spartina sp. in brackish and salt marshes in the USA and Argentina. Two replicated, paired, controlled studies found that cordgrass abundance (biomass or cover) was lower in burned than unburned plots, between 10 weeks and 17 months after the latest burn. However, one replicated, paired, site comparison study found that burning typically had no significant effect on cordgrass biomass or density after 2–8 months. One replicated, before-and-after study found that cordgrass biomass was lower, but cover greater, one year after burning than before. One study reported mixed effects on cordgrass cover across two marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (2 studies): Two studies (one controlled, one site comparison) in brackish marshes in the USA and Guadeloupe reported that the height of dominant grass-like plants was lower in burned than unburned areas for up to 1–2 years after the latest burn. The study in the USA reported recovery, to a slightly greater height than in unburned areas, after three years. The study in Guadeloupe also reported that the tallest trees in burned marshes were shorter than the tallest trees in unburned marshes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3055https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3055Fri, 02 Apr 2021 08:57:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide general protection for marshes or swamps Three studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of providing general protection for marshes or swamps. There was one study in each of Puerto Rico, China and Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two studies in China and Canada reported that the area of wetlands (including habitats other than marshes or swamps) in their study regions declined over 10–29 years, despite general protection of wetlands. However, in China, the decline was slower than in a previous period without protection. One before-and-after study of mangrove forests in Puerto Rico reported that their area increased following legal protection. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One before-and-after study in China reported degradation in wetland landscape structure over 29 years when wetlands were generally protected. However, the decline was slower than in a previous period when wetlands were not protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3385Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:30:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate wildlife harvesting Four studies evaluated the effects of regulating wildlife harvesting on reptile populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, Australia, Indonesia and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Australia found that following legal protection and harvest regulations, the density of saltwater crocodile populations increased. One before-and-after study in Japan found that following regulation of the green turtle harvest in combination with allowing harvested turtles to lay eggs prior to being killed, the number of nesting females tended to be higher. Reproductive success (1 study): One before-and-after study in Japan found that following regulation of the green turtle harvest in combination with allowing harvested turtles to lay eggs prior to being killed, the number of hatchlings produced in natural nests tended to be higher. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that following legal protection and harvest regulations, the average size of crocodiles increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated study in Costa Rica found that in an area with a legalized turtle egg harvest run by a community cooperative, a majority of people reported a willingness to do more to protect sea turtles. One study in Indonesia reported that quotas to regulate wildlife harvesting did not limit the number of individuals of three reptile species that were harvested and exported. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3538https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3538Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:33:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect habitat: Sea turtles Four studies evaluated the effects of protecting habitat on sea turtle populations. One study was in each of Costa Rica, the Seychelles, Belize and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, there were fewer nesting female leatherback turtles than before protection. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study off the coast of Belize found that in protected areas there were more hawksbill turtles than outside. One site comparison study in the USA found that differences in the abundance of green, loggerhead and hawksbill turtles in protected and unprotected areas were mixed. Reproductive success (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Costa Rica found that after an area was protected, more leatherback turtle hatchlings were produced than before protection. One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that nesting activity by green turtles increased following both habitat and species protection. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3662Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:56:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect reptile species Six studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting reptile species on their populations. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one was in each of the USA, Australia, the Seychelles and Cape Verde. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two studies (including one replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that waterbodies where turtle harvesting was prohibited had a similar abundance of red-eared sliders and Texas spiny softshell turtles compared to unprotected waterbodies. The other study found that following legal protection and harvest regulation, the density of saltwater crocodile populations increased. Reproductive success (1 studies): One before-and-after study in the Seychelles found that following legal protection of both green turtles and their habitat, nesting activity increased. Condition (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that in areas with legal protection and/or harvest regulation, Texas spiny softshell turtles and saltwater crocodiles were larger than in areas with no protection or before protection began. One study also found that female red-eared sliders were larger, but males were a similar size in protected compared to unprotected waterbodies. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 studies) Human behaviour change (3 studies): Two reviews in the Netherlands found that despite legislation protecting reptiles and their habitat, only one of four development projects completed their habitat compensation requirements or that compensatory slow worm habitat was not completed in time. Both studies also found that monitoring data was not available or that the success of a slow worm mitigation translocation could not be assessed. One replicated, before-and-after study in Cape Verde reported that following legal protections combined with public awareness campaigns, self-reported harvesting, selling and purchasing of sea turtles and turtle products decreased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3705https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3705Mon, 13 Dec 2021 10:32:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect large native trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of legally protecting large native trees. ‘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%2F3865https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3865Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:58:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create peatland Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating peatland. Two studies were in each of Finland and the UK, and one was in each of the Netherlands and Ireland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Finland found that mires restored by filling ditches and cutting trees had a moth community which was intermediate between drained and pristine mires. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in Finland found that after mires were restored by raising the water table and removing large trees, they had a higher species richness of mire specialist butterflies than before restoration or than unrestored, drained mires, and a similar species richness to pristine mires. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Ireland reported that protected bogs re-wetted by blocking drains had a similar species richness of moths to unrestored and unprotected bogs. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled study) in the UK and Finland found that bogs re-wetted by blocking drains and mires restored by raising the water table and removing large trees had a higher abundance of rosy marsh moth caterpillars and mire specialist butterflies than before restoration or than unrestored mires, and a similar abundance to pristine mires. Two replicated, paired, site comparison studies in Finland and Ireland found that mires restored by filling ditches and cutting trees and bogs restored by blocking drains (along with legal protection) had mixed effects on moth abundance compared to unrestored sites depending on species. Survival (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that where water levels had risen due to peatland restoration, large heath butterfly caterpillars had lower winter survival than in areas where water levels had not risen. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that wet heathland where water levels had been recently raised were less frequently occupied by Alcon large blue than sites where the water level had not been raised. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3948https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3948Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:59:56 +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