Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Removal of food source No evidence was captured on the effect of removing food sources as a control tool for Procambarus crayfish. '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%2F1033https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1033Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:16:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Draining the waterway No evidence was captured on the effect of draining the waterway as a control tool for Procambarus crayfish. '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%2F1034https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1034Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:16:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Remove the crayfish by electrofishing No evidence was captured on the effect of electrofishing as a control tool for Procambarus crayfish. '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%2F1035https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1035Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:17:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Relocate vulnerable crayfish No evidence was captured for the effect of relocating native species as a management tool against the effects of Procambarus crayfish. '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%2F1038https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1038Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:18:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Biological control of co-occurring beneficial species No evidence was captured on the effects of removing co-occurring beneficial species on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1040https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1040Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:19:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Habitat modification No evidence was captured on the effects of habitat modification on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1041https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1041Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:19:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Draining ponds and altering the length of time for which the pond contains water No evidence was captured on the effects of draining ponds or altering the length of time for which ponds contain water on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1042https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1042Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:20:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Pond destruction No evidence was captured on the effects of pond destruction on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1043https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1043Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:20:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Fencing No evidence was captured on the effects of fencing on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1044https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1044Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:20:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Collection of egg clutches Despite reference to removal of egg clutches in some studies using bilge pumps or nets, no evidence was captured on the effects of egg collection on American bullfrogs. '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%2F1047https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1047Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:21:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: American bullfrog control: Public education No evidence was captured on the effects of public education on the control of American bullfrogs. '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%2F1049https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1049Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:21:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Brown and black bullheads: Biological control using native predators No evidence was found on the impact of native predators on invasive bullhead populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1053https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1053Sun, 11 Oct 2015 20:12:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Red-eared terrapin: Biological control using native predators No evidence was captured on the use of predators to control invasive terrapin populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1056https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1056Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:58:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Red-eared terrapin: Draining invaded waterbodies No evidence was captured on the impact of draining invaded waterbodies on reduction of red-eared terrapin populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1057https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1057Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:00:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Chemical control using herbicides A controlled, replicated study in the UK found that the herbicide 2,4-D amine applied at 4.2 kg/ha achieved near to 100% mortality, compared with the herbicide glyphosate applied at 2.2 kg active ingredient/ha (without an adjuvant) which achieved negligible mortality. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1127Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:36:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Combination treatment using herbicides and physical removal A before-and-after study in Western Australia found that a combination of cutting followed by glyphosate chemical treatment, removed floating pennywort. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1128Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:39:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Use of hydrogen peroxide A controlled, replicated pilot study in The Netherlands, found that hydrogen peroxide sprayed on potted floating pennywort plants resulted in curling and transparency of the leaves when applied at the highest tested concentration (30%), but this was still not sufficient to kill the plant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1129Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:41:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Floating pennywort: Flame treatment A controlled, replicated, pilot experiment in 2010 in The Netherlands, found that flame treatments of 1, 2 or 3 seconds had a significantly negative and progressive impact on floating pennywort, and a 3 second repeat treatment after 11 days proved fatal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1131Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:46:00 +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: Crassula helmsii: Use hydrogen peroxide to control plants One controlled study in the UK using tank trials found that hydrogen peroxide did not control Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1281https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1281Tue, 12 Jul 2016 08:42:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use dyes to reduce light levels One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying aquatic dye, along with other treatments, did not reduce coverage of Crassula helmsii. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1293Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:32:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Decontamination to prevent further spread One controlled, replicated container study in the UK found that submerging Crassula helmsii in hot water led to higher mortality than drying out plant fragments or a control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1308Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:57:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crassula helmsii: Use a combination of control measures One before-and-after study at a single pond in the UK found covering Crassula helmsii with carpet, followed by treatment with the herbicide glyphosate, killed 80% of the plant. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1313Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:04:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Water level drawdown One replicated, randomized, controlled laboratory study in the USA found that water removal to expose plants to drying during the summer led to lower survival of parrot’s feather plants than exposing plants to drying during the winter. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1585Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Parrot’s feather: Biological control using plant pathogens One study in South Africa found that parrot’s feather plants survived after being treated with a strain of the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1601Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:05:32 +0100