Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Encouraging predators Two replicated, controlled studies in Italy found that eels fed on the red swamp crayfish and reduced population size. One replicated, controlled study from France in 2001 found that pike predated red swamp crayfish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1030https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1030Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:15:43 +0100Collected 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: Add chemicals to the water One replicated, controlled study in Italy found that red swamp crayfish could be killed using the natural pyrethrum Pyblast at a concentration of 0.05 mg/l, but that application to drained crayfish burrows was not effective. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1036https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1036Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:17:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Procambarus crayfish control: Create barriers A before-and-after study conducted between 2007 and 2010 in Spain found that the use of concrete dams across a stream, specifically designed with features to prevent red swamp crayfish from crawling over them, were effective at containing spread of the population upstream. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1037https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1037Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:18:00 +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: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Biological control using native predators No evidence was captured on the deliberate introduction of a native predator to biologically control gobies. '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%2F1061https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1061Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:11:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Biological control of beneficial species No evidence was found for reducing or controlling goby population size by reducing the population of co-occurring beneficial species. '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%2F1062https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1062Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:13:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Application of a biocide No evidence was captured on the use of biocide to control populations of the round goby or the tubenose goby. '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%2F1063https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1063Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:14:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Habitat manipulation No evidence was captured on the use of habitat manipulation to control invasive goby 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%2F1064https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1064Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:15:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Draining invaded waterbodies No evidence was captured for use of draining waterbodies to reduce the population size of invasive gobies. '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%2F1065https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1065Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:17:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Netting No evidence was captured on the use of seine netting to control goby 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%2F1066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1066Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:18:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Electrofishing No evidence was captured for use of electrofishing to reduce the population size of invasive gobies. '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%2F1067https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1067Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:19:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Using a combination of netting and electrofishing No evidence was captured on the use of a combination of electrofishing and gill netting to control goby 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%2F1068https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1068Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:20:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Trapping using visual, sound and pheromonal lures No evidence was captured on trapping Ponto-Caspian gobies using sound or pheromonal lures. '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%2F1069https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1069Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:21:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations No evidence was captured on the use of carbon dioxide for management of invasive Ponto-Caspian gobies. '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%2F1070https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1070Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:23:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: UV radiation No evidence was captured on the use of UV radiation to control goby 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%2F1071https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1071Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Changing salinity A replicated, controlled laboratory study in Canada found 100% mortality of round gobies within 48 hours of exposure to water of 30% salinity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1072https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1072Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:27:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Changing pH No evidence was captured on the use of pH alteration to control goby 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%2F1073https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1073Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:28:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Use of barriers to prevent migration A controlled, replicated field study in the USA, found that an electrical barrier prevented movement of round gobies across it, and that increasing electrical pulse duration and voltage increased effectiveness of the barrier. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1074https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1074Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:31:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gobies: Public education No evidence was captured on the impact of education programmes on control of goby 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%2F1075https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1075Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:32:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exposure to parasites A replicated, laboratory study in Canada found that an introduced parasitic mould reduced populations of an invasive shrimp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1089https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1089Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:30:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exposure to disease-causing organisms No evidence was captured for the use of disease-causing organisms to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1090https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1090Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:31:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Dewater (dry out) the habitat A replicated, controlled laboratory study from Poland found that lowering water levels in sand killed three species of invasive freshwater shrimp, although one species required water content levels of 4% and below before it was killed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1094Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:44:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ponto-Caspian gammarids: Exchanging ballast water No evidence was captured for exchanging ballast water to control Ponto-Caspian gammarids. '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%2F1097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1097Tue, 13 Oct 2015 13:51:28 +0100