Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate plant remains into the soil that produce weed-controlling chemicalsWeeds: Six studies (including six randomised, replicated, controlled tests) from Asia, Europe and North America examined the effect of allelopathic plant remains on weeds by comparing amended soils with weeded controls. Three studies found a reduction in weed growth, and three found effects varied between years, weed groups, or the type of weeding method in controls.Four studies from Asia and North America examined the effect on weeds by comparing amended soils with unweeded controls. Two studies found a reduction in weed growth, but one found that residues applied too far in advance of crop planting had the reverse effect. Two studies found that effects varied between trials, weed species or the type of residue used.Two studies, including one randomised, replicated, controlled laboratory study, found that the decrease in weeds did not last beyond a few days or weeks after residue incorporation. Pests: One randomised, replicated, controlled study in the Philippines found mixed effects on pests. Crop growth: Two of three studies found crop growth was inhibited by allelopathic plant remains, but this could be minimised by changing the timing of application. One study found effects varied between years. Yield: Three randomised, replicated, controlled studies compared yields in amended plots with weeded controls and found positive, negative and mixed effects. Three studies compared amended plots with unweeded controls, two found positive effects on yield and one found mixed effects (depending on the crop). Profit: One study found that amending soils increased profit compared to unweeded controls, but not compared to weeded controls. Crops studied were beans, cotton, maize, rice and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728Thu, 30 May 2013 13:50:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using co-evolved, host specific herbivores A controlled, replicated field study in China, found a flea beetle caused heavy feeding destruction when added to field cages containing prostrate water primrose seedlings, and was specific to the prostrate water primrose and Indian toothcup. A replicated, before-and-after field study in the USA found that introduction of flea beetles to a pond significantly reduced the abundance of large-flower primrose-willow. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1135Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:03:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using native herbivores No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using native herbivores. '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%2F1136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1136Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:07:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Biological control using fungal-based herbicides No evidence was found on the use of biological control of water primrose using fungal-based herbicides. '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%2F1137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1137Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:09:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Physical removal A study in the USA found that hand pulling and raking water primrose failed to reduce its abundance, whereas hand-pulling from the margins of a pond eradicated a smaller population of water primrose. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1138Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:11:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated laboratory study in the USA found that the herbicide triclopyr TEA applied at concentrations of 0.25% killed 100% of young cultivated water primrose within two months. A before-and-after field study in the UK found that the herbicide glyphosate controlled water primrose, causing 97% mortality when mixed with a non-oil based sticking agent and 100% mortality when combined with TopFilm. A controlled, replicated, randomized study in Venezuela3, found that use of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl (Sempra) resulted in a significant reduction in water primrose coverage without apparent toxicity to rice plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1139Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:14:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A study in California, USA1, found that application of glyphosate and a surface active agent called Cygnet-Plus followed by removal by mechanical means achieved a 75% kill rate of water primrose. A study in Australia2, found that a combination of herbicide application, physical removal, and other actions such as promotion of native plants and mulching, reduced the coverage of Peruvian primrose-willow by 85-90%. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1140Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:22:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of hydrogen peroxide No evidence was found for use of hydrogen peroxide to control water primrose. '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%2F1141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1141Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:26:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of liquid nitrogen No evidence was found for use of liquid nitrogen to control water primrose. '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%2F1142https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1142Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:27:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Flame treatment No evidence was found for use of flame treatment to control water primrose. '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%2F1143https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1143Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:28:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of mats placed on the bottom of the water body No evidence was found for use of mats placed on the bottom of a water body to control water primrose. '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%2F1144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1144Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of a tarpaulin No evidence was captured on the use of tarpaulin for control of water primrose. '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%2F1145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1145Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:31:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Excavation of banks No evidence was captured on the effects of excavation of banks using a sod-cutter or ‘turf-cutter’ to remove water primrose. '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%2F1146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1146Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:32:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Environmental control (e.g shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging) No evidence was captured on the use of environmental control of water primrose using shading, altered flow, altered rooting depth, or dredging. '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%2F1147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1147Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:33:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of water primrose. '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%2F1148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1148Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:34:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Reduction of trade through legislation and codes of conduct One randomized, before-and-after trial in the Netherlands reported that the implementation of a code of conduct reduced the trade of aquatic plants banned from sale (group that included parrot’s feather Myriophyllum aquaticum). One study in the USA found that parrot’s feather plants were still traded despite a state-wise trade ban. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1604Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes. There were three studies in the USA and one in each of the Netherlands and Japan. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported that the area covered by marsh vegetation was higher five years after dechannelizing a river than 10 years before. Community types (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported changes in the area covered by different marsh plant communities over five years after dechannelizing a river compared to 10 years before. Community composition (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported changes in the overall plant community composition after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness was greater in restored slacks (groundwater extraction stopped five years previously, along with other interventions) than in mature unmanaged slacks. One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total plant species richness tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before, but that there was no significant difference for diversity. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified the richness of characteristic plant species – typical of dune slacks or nutrient-rich marshes – over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total vegetation cover tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table prevented increases in understory vegetation cover over the following year. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified total vegetation over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Cover never exceeded 50%. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table had no significant effect on cover of sedges Carex There were similar increases in dammed and undammed marshes over one year. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported changes in the cover of wetland- and habitat-characteristic plant species over nine years after raising the water table. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this intervention on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported that rewetted floodplain marshes became dominated by a non-native wetland shrub, approximately 4–9 years after raising the water table. One replicated study of a freshwater wetland in the USA reported that the effects of reflooding on the density of emergent plant species depended on the species and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3026https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3026Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses or habitat types. Both studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of shrubby and forested wetlands increased – reaching greater coverage than before intervention, but also than before degradation. Community types (1 study): The same study broke down overall swamp coverage into specific community types. For example, most of the shrubby wetlands that developed after raising the water level were dominated by a non-native species – which was not present historically. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study of historical shrubby wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following nine years. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): The same study reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, only one of two sites became dominated by wetland-characteristic shrubs. The other site remained dominated by wetland-characteristic herb species. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level slightly increased cover of buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis in one of two sites (no data for other site). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3200https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3200Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:18 +0100