Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in freshwater marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of backfilled canals in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that emergent marsh vegetation coverage was greater within the channels of plugged than unplugged canals, after 6–60 months. However, coverage on former spoil areas did not significantly differ between plugged and unplugged canals. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2991Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in brackish/salt marshes. Both studies were in the USA. There was overlap in the canals used in the studies. Both studies included some freshwater areas in some analyses, but all results are based predominantly on canals in brackish or saline marshes. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies studied emergent vegetation of backfilled canals in the USA. One study reported that plugged canals had greater coverage of emergent marsh vegetation than unplugged canals after 6–60 months. One study found that emergent vegetation coverage on former spoil heaps did not significantly differ alongside plugged and unplugged canals after 6–11 years. The first study also reported that plugged canals were more likely to contain floating/submerged vegetation than unplugged canals. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2992Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2F2993https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2993Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:08:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plug/dam canals or trenches: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of plugging/damming canals or trenches in brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F2994https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2994Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:09:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude vehiclesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding vehicles from marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2F3020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3020Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:40:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically exclude pedestriansWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically excluding pedestrians from marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2F3023https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3023Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:43:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater marshes. Three studies were in the USA, one was in India and one was in France. Two of the studies in the USA were in the same site and shared some plots. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that physically removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh altered the overall plant community composition, over the following two years. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh increased overall plant species richness 1–2 years later. Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in wet meadows in the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no significant effect on overall plant species richness or diversity three years later. One of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst the other controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a temporary marsh in France reported that stripping all vegetation increased the number of habitat-characteristic plant species present in the following two years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes/wet meadows in India and the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no clear or significant effect on overall vegetation cover, nine months or three years later. Two of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst one controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Herb abundance (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in loosestrife-invaded wet meadows in the USA, one reported that removing all vegetation increased the cover of grass-like plants, and reduced the cover of forbs, three years later. The other study found that controlling regrowth of the invasive species – by physical removal and applying herbicide – had no significant effect on cover of grass-like plants or forbs after three years. Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of algae nine months later. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the target problematic species. For example, one before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of some other common herb species nine months later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in pepperweed invaded marshes in the USA found that physically removing pepperweed from plots sprayed with herbicide increased cover of native plants, over the following two years, compared to spraying with herbicide only. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study quantified the effect of this action on the cover of individual plant species, other than the target of control (see original paper for data). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2F3093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3093Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3094Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in freshwater marshes. There were two studies in Australia and two in Costa Rica. In each country, the two studies were based in one study area but used different experimental set-ups. The final study was in Mexico. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that crushing (and burning) cattail stands reduced the area of live vegetation present 5–22 months later. Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a marsh in Costa Rica found that plots in which cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed had a different overall plant community composition, over the following 15 months, to plots in which vegetation was not crushed. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, randomized, paired) in one freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that in plots where cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed (sometimes along with burning), plant species richness and diversity were not lower than in plots where vegetation was not crushed (or burned). Vegetation was surveyed 2–22 months after intervention. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation increased overall plant diversity, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. However, disking had no significant effect on plant richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (2 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica reported that crushing (and burning) cattail stands reduced live vegetation cover 5–22 months later. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation typically had no significant effect on overall plant density, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. Herb abundance (1 study): One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported grass/sedge cover for up to four years after crushing mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions). Native/non-target abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a mimosa-invaded wetland in Australia reported that crushing mimosa stands did not reduce – and often increased – cover of non-mimosa vegetation one year later. One study of a floodplain marsh in Australia simply reported non-target vegetation cover for up to four years after crushing mimosa-invaded vegetation (along with other interventions). Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the species being controlled. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Costa Rica found that plots in which cattail-dominated vegetation was crushed supported a greater abundance of individual plant species other than cattail, over the following 15 months, than plots in which vegetation was not crushed. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a freshwater marsh in Mexico found that disking after cutting grass-invaded vegetation increased the cover of two of five common native plant species, after 4–8 months, compared to cutting alone. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3095https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3095Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in brackish/salt marshes.   ‘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%2F3096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3096Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: freshwater swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in freshwater swamps. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide increased overall plant richness and diversity, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on native plant species richness, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies in the USA evaluated the effects, on tree/shrub abundance, of physically damaging canarygrass-invaded vegetation. One study found that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide had no significant effect on the density of non-planted tree seedlings, two growing seasons later, compared to spraying alone. The other study found that managed plots (cut, disked and sprayed with herbicide) contained more non-planted tree seedlings than unmanaged plots, after 1–3 years. Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA found that plots in which canarygrass-invaded vegetation was managed (by disking, along with cutting and applying herbicide) contained at least as much non-canarygrass herb cover, after 1–3 years, to plots in which vegetation was not managed. Individual species abundance (1 study): One controlled study aiming to restore a swamp in the USA reported that ploughing a canarygrass-invaded plot after spraying it with herbicide affected the abundance of some individual plant species – other than the target problematic species – two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3097https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3097Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3098Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:06:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically or chemically remove oilWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically or chemically removing oil (but not vegetation) from contaminated marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2F3173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3173Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:40:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant non-woody plants into moisture-retaining peat pots: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects of using moisture-retaining peat pots when planting emergent, non-woody vegetation in freshwater wetlands. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wetland in the USA found that tussock sedge Carex stricta cover was similar across plots, after two growing seasons, whether sedges were planted into peat pots or into existing wetland soil. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Individual plant size (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wetland in the USA found that the biomass of tussock sedge Carex stricta plants was similar, after two growing seasons, whether they were planted into peat pots or into existing wetland soil. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wetland in the USA found that the survival rate of tussock sedge Carex stricta plants was similar, after two growing seasons, whether they were planted into peat pots or into existing wetland soil. Growth (1 study): The same study found that the growth rate of tussock sedge Carex stricta was typically similar, over two growing seasons, when planted into peat pots or into existing wetland soil. However, in a dry area and in a dry year, planting in peat pots did increase the growth rate. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3341https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3341Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:45:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant non-woody plants into moisture-retaining peat pots: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of using moisture-retaining peat pots when planting emergent, non-woody vegetation in brackish/saline wetlands.   ‘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%2F3342https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3342Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:46:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees/shrubs into moisture-retaining peat pots: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of using moisture-retaining peat pots when planting trees/shrubs in freshwater wetlands.   ‘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%2F3343https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3343Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:46:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees/shrubs into moisture-retaining peat pots: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of using moisture-retaining peat pots when planting trees/shrubs in brackish/saline wetlands.   ‘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%2F3344https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3344Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:46:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant vegetation into heavy containersWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting emergent wetland vegetation into heavy containers.   ‘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%2F3345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3345Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:55:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing. All three studies were in greenhouses or laboratories in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one also randomized) in greenhouses in the USA found that rubbing seeds of herbaceous plants with sandpaper before sowing had no significant effect on their germination rate. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that removing the sac-like seed coating before sowing typically increased, and did not reduce, the germination rate of sedges Carex spp. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3376https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3376Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing.   ‘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%2F3377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3377Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage tree/shrub seeds before sowing: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing. The study was in a laboratory in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE          OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that cutting baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in half before sowing reduced their germination rate. Growth (1 study): The same study found that cutting baldcypress Taxodium distichum seeds in half before sowing had no significant effect on the height of surviving seedlings, 30 days after germination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3378Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:22:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage tree/shrub seeds before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of physically damaging their seeds before sowing.   ‘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%2F3379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3379Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:23:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of paying stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps. There was one study in each of the UK and Nigeria. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the UK found that paying landowners to manage farmland ditches under agri-environment rules had no clear or significant effect on the frequency of emergent vegetation. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that farmland ditches managed under agri-environment rules contained a similar number of plant species to ditches not managed under these rules. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One study in Nigeria reported that 58 communities with access to micro-credits for sustainable development changed their behaviour. In particular, they switched from livelihood practices that damaged mangrove forests to more sustainable practices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:49:07 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue