Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of encouraging habitat protection of privately-owned land. ‘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%2F2560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2560Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:36:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Build fences around protected areas Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of building fences around protected areas. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mozambique. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal species richness initially increased in both study sites, but subsequently declined at one of the sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A paired sites study in Mozambique found that inside a fenced sanctuary there were more mammal scats than outside the sanctuary. A before-and-after study in Kenya found that after a fence was built around a protected area, mammal abundance initially increased in both study sites, but it subsequently declined at one of the sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2561Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:38:38 +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: Increase size of protected area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing the size of a protected area. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that expanding a fenced reserve resulted in the home range of a reintroduced group of lions becoming larger but the core range becoming smaller. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:55:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase resources for managing protected areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing resources for managing protected areas. This study was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Species richness (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that mammal species richness was higher in a well-resourced national park, than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study Tanzania found that there were greater occupancy rates or relative abundances of most mammal species in a well-resourced national park than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:57:32 +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: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +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: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +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: Sterilize predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of sterilizing predators. This study was in the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA and Canada found that sterilising some wolves (combined with trapping and removing others) did not increase caribou survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2573Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:59:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage wetland water levels for mammal species One study evaluated the effects of managing wetland water levels for mammal species. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that managing wetland water levels to be higher in winter increased the abundance of muskrat houses. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2574https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2574Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:49:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control competitors Two studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling competitors. One study was across Norway and Sweden and one was in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Norway and Sweden found that red fox control, along with supplementary feeding, was associated with an increase in arctic fox litters. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A controlled study in Norway found that where red foxes had been controlled arctic foxes were more likely to colonize. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2575Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:11:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or maintain corridors between habitat patches Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of creating or maintaining corridors between habitat patches. One study was in each of Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated) in Canada, the USA, Norway and the Czech Republic found that corridors between habitat patches were used by small mammals. Additionally, North American deermice moved further through corridors with increased corridor width and connectivity and root voles moved further in corridors of intermediate width. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2576Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:20:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of applying fertilizer to vegetation to increase food availability. One study was in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies, in Canada and the USA, found that applying fertilizer increased the use of vegetation by pronghorns and Rocky Mountain elk. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2577Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:48:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding for predators One study evaluated the effects on potential prey mammals of providing diversionary feeding for predators. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that diversionary feeding of predators appeared to increase woodland caribou calf survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2578Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:20:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sterilize non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs) We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of sterilizing non-native domestic or feral species (e.g. cats and dogs). '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%2F2579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2579Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:30:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train mammals to avoid problematic species Two studies evaluated the effects of training mammals to avoid problematic species. Both studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Australia found that training greater bilbies to avoid introduced predators did not increase their post-release survival. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One of two controlled studies in Australia found that greater bilbies trained to avoid introduced predators showed more predator avoidance behaviour, the second study found no difference in behaviour between trained and untrained bilbies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2580Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:32:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat disease in wild mammals Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of treating disease in the wild. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Condition (2 studies): A replicated study in Germany found that medical treatment of mouflons against foot rot disease healed most infected animals. A before-and-after study in the USA found that management which included vaccination of Yellowstone bison did not reduce prevalence of brucellosis. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Uptake (1 study): A study in the USA found that a molasses-based bait was readily consumed by white-tailed deer, including when it contained a dose of a disease vaccination. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2581Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:45:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vaccination programme Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using vaccination programmes. Three studies were in the UK and one study was in each of Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ethiopia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Poland found that following an anti-rabies vaccination programme, red fox numbers increased. Condition (6 studies): Five studies (including three replicated, three controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Belgium, Spain and the UK found that following vaccination, rabies was less frequent in red foxes, numbers of Eurasian badgers infected with tuberculosis was reduced and European rabbits developed immunity to myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease. One of the studies also found that vaccination reduced the speed and extent of infection in infected Eurasian badgers. A study in Ethiopia found that following vaccination of Ethiopian wolves, a rabies outbreak halted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:01:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial refuges/breeding sites Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges/breeding sites. Two studies were in each of the USA, Spain and Portugal and one was in each of Argentina and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled), in Spain and Portugal, found that artificial warrens increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Argentina found that artificial refuges did not increase abundances of small vesper mice or Azara's grass mice. Survival (1 study): A study in USA found that artificial escape dens increased swift fox survival rates. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (two replicated), in Australia, Spain, Portugal and the USA, found that artificial refuges, warrens or nest structures were used by fat-tailed dunnarts, European rabbits, and Key Largo woodrats and Key Largo cotton mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees Thirty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial dens or nest boxes on trees. Fourteen studies were in Australia, nine were in the USA, three were in the UK, one was in each of Canada, Lithuania, South Africa and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, the UK, Canada and Lithuania, found that provision of artificial dens or nest boxes increased abundances of gray squirrels and common dormice. The other two studies found that northern flying squirrel and Douglas squirrel abundances did not increase. Condition (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that nest boxes provision did not increase body masses of northern flying squirrel or Douglas squirrel. BEHAVIOUR (27 STUDIES) Use (27 studies): Twenty-seven studies, in Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, South Africa and Japan found that artificial dens or nest boxes were used by a range of mammal species for roosting and breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:48:27 +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