Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected 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 +0100