Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict use of rodent poisons on farmland with high secondary poisoning risk We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of restricting use of rodent poisons on farmland that have secondary poisoning risks. ‘We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2391Thu, 28 May 2020 09:34:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove understorey vegetation in forest Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing understorey vegetation in forest. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two also before-and-after), in the USA, found that compared to prescribed burning, mechanically removing understorey vegetation growth in forests did not increase abundances of white-footed mice, shrews or four rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2482Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:27:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing trees and shrubs to recreate open areas of land. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that where Ashe juniper trees were removed, there were higher abundances of three rodent species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that removing trees increased use of areas by Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2483Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:42:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining sites Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, in Australia, found that mammal species richness was similar in restored mine areas compared to unmined areas or higher in restored areas (but similar when considering only native species). One study found that species richness was lower in restored compared to in unmined areas. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal species richness. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored mine areas were recolonized by a range of mammal species within 10 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): A review of rehabilitated mine sites in Australia found that only two of eight studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had equal or higher mammal densities compared to those in unmined areas. One of three replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Australia, found that small mammal density was similar on restored mines compared to on unmined land. One study found that for three of four species (including all three native species studied) abundance was lower in restored compared to unmined sites and one study found mixed results, including that abundances of two out of three focal native species were lower in restored compared to unmined sites. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that most restored former mine areas were not used by koalas while another replicated site comparison study in Australia found quokka activity to be similar in revegetated mined sites compared to in unmined forest. OTHER (1 STUDY) Genetic diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in forest on restored mine areas, genetic diversity of yellow-footed antechinus was similar to that in unmined forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:08:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native amphibians (e.g. cane toads) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native amphibians. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2498Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:38:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native invertebrates One study evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invertebrates. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study the USA found that after the control of red imported fire ants, capture rates of northern pygmy mice increased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2501Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals. Twenty-one studies were in Australia, and one was in each of France, the UK, Equador and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Ten of 18 controlled, before-and-after or site comparison studies, in Australia, found that after controlling red foxes, abundances, densities or trapping frequencies increased for rock-wallaby spp., eastern grey kangaroo, woylie,, brush-tail possum, tammar wallaby, chuditch and quenda. Seven studies found mixed results with increases in some species but not others, increases followed by declines or increases only where cats as well as foxes were controlled. The other study found no increase in bush rat numbers with fox control. One of three replicated, before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies), in Australia, France and Ecuador, found that control of invasive rodents increased numbers of lesser white-toothed shrews and greater white-toothed shrews. One study found that Santiago rice rat abundance declined less with rodent control and one found mixed results, with increased numbers of short-tailed mice at one out of four study sites. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that controlling red foxes increased survival of juvenile eastern grey kangaroos. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Three studies (two before-and-after, one controlled), in the UK and Australia, found that after controlling non-native American mink, red foxes and European rabbits, there were increases in ranges or proportions of sites occupied by water vole, common brushtail possum, long-nosed potoroo and southern brown bandicoot and four native small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following removal of feral cats, vertebrate prey increased as a proportion of the diet of island foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:58:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals within a fenced area One study evaluated the effects on native mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals within a fenced area. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammal species richness was higher than outside the fenced area. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in a fenced area where invasive cats, red foxes and European rabbits were removed, native mammals overall and two out of four small mammal species were more abundant than outside the fenced area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2528Mon, 08 Jun 2020 14:51:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native plants Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native invasive plants. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated study in the USA found that control of introduced saltcedar did not change small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partial removal of velvet mesquite did not increase abundances of six mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2529Mon, 08 Jun 2020 15:23:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native species that could interbreed with native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing or controlling non-native species that could interbreed with native species. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2534https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2534Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove topsoil that has had fertilizer added to mimic low nutrient soil We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of removing topsoil that has had fertilizer added to mimic low nutrient soil. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2544https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2544Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:01:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Replant vegetation We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of replanting vegetation. 'We found no studies' means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2549Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:09:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation by hand/machine Twenty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation by hand or machine. Eleven studies were in the USA, and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Israel, Norway, Portugal, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that mechanically clearing trees within woodland reduced small mammal diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Eight of 11 site comparison or controlled studies (nine of which were replicated), in the USA, Israel, Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands, found that clearing woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation benefitted target mammals. Population or density increases were recorded for small mammals, European rabbits and Stephens’ kangaroo rat while black-tailed prairie dog and California ground squirrel colonies were larger or denser and Utah prairie dog colonies established better than in uncleared areas. Two studies found mixed results of clearing woody vegetation, with hazel dormouse abundance declining, then increasing and small mammal abundance increasing, then declining in both cleared and uncleared plots alike. One study found no effect of scrub clearance from sand dunes on habitat specialist small mammals. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that mechanical disturbance of woody vegetation within forest (combined with reseeding, follow-up herbicide application and further seeding) increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. BEHAVIOUR (8 STUDIES) Use (8 studies): Four of seven studies (of which six were site comparisons or controlled), in the USA, Canada, Norway, France and Thailand, found that areas cleared of woody vegetation or herbaceous and grassland vegetation were utilized more by mule deer, reindeer, mouflon and gaur. One study found that clearing woody vegetation promoted increased use by white-tailed deer in some but not all plots, one found that it did not increase use by mule deer and one found that carrying out a second clearance on previously cleared plots did not increase use by white-tailed deer. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that clearing woody vegetation from shrubland increased wildebeest and zebra abundance following subsequent burning but not when carried out without burning whilst other mammals did not show consistent responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2550Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain buffer zones around core habitat We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining buffer zones around core habitat. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2562Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:46:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation using herbicides Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation using herbicides. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the USA found that applying herbicide did not increase numbers of translocated Utah prairie dogs or alter mule deer densities in areas of tree clearance. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that applying herbicide, along with mechanical disturbance and seeding, increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying herbicide did not reduce bot fly infestation rates of rodents and cottontail rabbits. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that applying herbicide increased forest use by female, but not male, white-tailed deer and increased pasture use by cottontail rabbits in some, but not all, sampling seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:27:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating grassland. One study each was in Portugal, the USA and Hungary. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar small mammal species richness compared to native grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Portugal found that sowing pasture grasses into areas cleared of scrub did not increase European rabbit densities. A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar abundance of small mammals compared to native grassland. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that seeding with grassland species as part of a suite of actions including mechanical disturbance and herbicide application increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2566Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:52:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create savannas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating savannas. One study was in Senegal and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that restoring savannas by removing trees increased small mammal diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Senegal found that in a population of dorcas gazelle translocated into a fenced enclosure where vegetation had been restored, births outnumbered deaths. A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in the USA found that restoring savannas by removing trees did not, in most cases, change small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2568https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2568Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:54:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create shrubland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating shrubland. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies, in the USA and Mexico, found that following desert scrub or shrubland restoration, mammal species richness was similar to that in undisturbed areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that restored desert scrub hosted similar small mammal abundance compared to undisturbed desert scrub. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restoring shrubland following tree clearance did not increase usage of areas by mule deer compared to tree clearance alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2569https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2569Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:19:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating forest. Two studies were in the USA and one each were in Colombia, Italy and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the USA and Colombia found that mammal species richness in restored forest was similar to that in established forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one a site comparison) in Australia and Italy found that replanted or regrowing forest supported a higher abundance of hazel dormice than did coppiced forest. The other study found only low numbers of common brushtail possums or common ringtail possums by 7–30 years after planting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Usage (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restored riparian forest areas were visited more by carnivores than were remnant forests when restored areas were newly established, but not subsequently, whilst restored areas were not visited more frequently by black-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:06:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wetlands Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating wetlands. Three studies were in the USA and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that the composition of mammal species present differed between a created and a natural wetland. Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the USA, found that mammal species richness did not differ between created and natural wetlands. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following marshland restoration, muskrat abundance increased. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the UK, found that water voles persisted better in wetlands that were partially restored using mechanical or manual methods than they did in wetlands undergoing complete mechanical restoration. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2572https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2572Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:45:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove roadkill regularly to reduce kill rate of predators/scavengers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing roadkill regularly to reduce the kill rate of predators/scavengers. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2601Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain undisturbed patches during thinning operations Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining undisturbed patches during thinning operations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two randomized, replicated, controlled studies (one also before-and-after) in the USA found that snowshoe hares and tassel-eared squirrels used retained undisturbed forest patches more than thinned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2640Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:37:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain dead trees after uprooting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining dead trees after uprooting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that areas where trees were uprooted but left on site were used more by desert cottontails than were cleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2642Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:55:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain understorey vegetation within plantations One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining understorey vegetation within plantations. This study was in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more species of medium-sized mammal, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Chile found that areas with retained understorey vegetation had more visits from medium-sized mammals, compared to areas cleared of understorey vegetation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2645Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:19:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining riparian buffer strips during timber harvesting. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2652Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:34:20 +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