Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Extract aggregates from a vessel that is moving rather than static One study examined the effects of dredging from a vessel that is moving rather than static on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the English Channel found that a site where aggregate extraction was undertaken using a moving trailer suction hopper dredger had similar invertebrate species richness and lower diversity compared to a site where extraction occurred using a static suction hopper dredger. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the English Channel found that a site where aggregate extraction was undertaken using a moving trailer suction hopper dredger had higher abundance of invertebrates compared to a site where extraction occurred using a static suction hopper dredger. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2071https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2071Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:17:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish temporary fisheries closures Six studies examined the effects of establishing temporary fisheries closures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. One study was in the English Channel (UK), one in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel (Australia), one in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), two in the Mozambique Channel (Madagascar), and one in the North Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have greater invertebrate species richness than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Mollusc community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and after study in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing for 12 years only to recreational fishing led to changes in scallop species community composition over four fishing seasons. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed-gear fishing did not have a greater invertebrate biomass than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the North Sea found that reopening a site to fishing following a temporary 20-month closure led to lower total abundance but similar marketable abundance of European lobsters compared to a continuously-fished site after a month. Mollusc abundance (5 studies): One replicated, site comparison study English Channel found that sites seasonally closed to towed gear did not have higher abundance of great scallops than sites where towed-fishing occurred year-round. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing did not increase octopus abundance/biomass compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas. Two replicated, before-and after studies in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to all fishing to recreational fishing only led to a decline in scallop abundance after four fishing seasons and in red abalone after three years. Mollusc condition (3 studies): One replicated, before-and after study in the North Pacific Ocean found that temporarily reopening an area previously closed to fishing led to a decline in the size of red abalone after three years. Two before-and after, site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Mozambique Channel found that temporarily closing an area to reef octopus fishing increased the weight of octopus compared to before closure and to continuously fished areas, but one also found that this effect did not last once fishing resumed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2098Tue, 22 Oct 2019 08:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish territorial user rights for fisheries One study examined the effects of establishing territorial user rights for fisheries on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the South Pacific Ocean (Chile).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in South Pacific Ocean found that an area with territorial user rights for fisheries had larger-sized and more numerous egg capsules, and more larvae of the Chilean abalone up to 21 months after establishing fishing restrictions compared to an open-access area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2104Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:32:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Eliminate fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing We found no studies that evaluated the effects of eliminating fisheries subsidies that encourage overfishing on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2115Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:46:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hand harvest instead of using a dredge Two studies examined the effects of hand harvesting instead of using a dredge on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Both were in San Matías Gulf, South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the community composition of the unwanted catch was similar by hand harvesting and by using a dredge. Unwanted catch richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting caught fewer species of unwanted catch compared to using a dredge. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, hand harvesting caught fewer unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars compared to using a dredge. Unwanted catch condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that, when harvesting mussels, the damage caused to unwanted sea urchins and brittle stars was similar by hand harvesting and by using a dredge. OTHER 1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in San Matías Gulf found that more commercially targeted mussels were caught by hand harvesting than by using a dredge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2121https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2121Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:13:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a funnel (such as a sievenet) or other escape devices on shrimp/prawn trawl nets One study examined the effects of fitting a funnel, sievenet, or other escape devices on trawl nets on marine subtidal invertebrate. The study was in the North Sea (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the North Sea found that trawl nets fitted with a sievenet appeared to catch fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2131https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2131Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:27:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets Seven studies examined the effects of adding one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Six were in the North Sea (Belgium, Netherlands, UK), two in the Thames estuary (UK), one in the English Channel (UK), and one in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall survival (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel and the North Sea found that fitting nets with either one of seven designs of square mesh escape panels (varying mesh size and twine type) led to higher survival rates of invertebrates that escaped the nets compared to unmodified nets. Unwanted catch overall abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria  found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones reduced the unwanted catch of invertebrates compared to unmodified nets. Two found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the unwanted catch of invertebrates and fish depending on the panel design. Two found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels  caught similar amounts of unwanted invertebrates and fish compared to unmodified nets. OTHERS (7 STUDIES) Commercially targeted catch abundance (7 studies): Three of seven replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea, the Thames estuary, the English Channel and the Gulf of Carpentaria, found that trawl nets fitted with one or more mesh escape panels/windows/zones caught similar amounts of all or most commercial species to unmodified nets. Three found mixed effects of fitting escape panels on the catch of all or most commercial species depending on the species and/or panel design. One found that trawl nets fitted with escape panels reduced the catch of commercial species compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2132Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:33:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets Two studies examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and in Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid but not an ‘upward’-oriented grid reduced the weight of small unwanted catch and that both grid orientations caught fewer unwanted large sponges, and that nets fitted with two sizes of grids reduced the number and biomass of unwanted blue swimmer crabs and giant cuttlefish caught, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (2 STUDIES) Commercial catch abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Gulf of Carpentaria and Spencer Gulf found that nets fitted with a ‘downward’-oriented grid or a small grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets, but those fitted with an ‘upward’-oriented grid or a large grid caught similar amounts to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2133Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:46:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets One study examined the effects on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows and one or more soft, rigid or semi-rigid grids or frames to trawl nets . The study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the total weight of small unwanted catch and caught fewer unwanted large sponges, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Carpentaria found that trawl nets fitted with an escape window and a grid reduced the catch of commercially targeted prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2134Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:52:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and use square mesh instead of a diamond mesh at the codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames to trawl nets and using a square mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of three dominant groups of unwanted invertebrate catch species, compared to unmodified nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of St Vincent found that trawl nets fitted with a rigid U-shaped grid and a square-oriented mesh codend reduced the catch rates of the commercially targeted western king prawn, due to reduced catch of less valuable smaller-sized prawns, compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2137Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:57:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets and use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend One study examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels to trawl nets and using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the English Channel (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer unwanted catch of non-commercial invertebrates compared to standard trawl nets. OTHER (1 STUDY) Commercial catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the English Channel found that trawl nets fitted with two large square mesh release panels and a square mesh codend caught fewer commercial shellfish, and fewer but more valuable commercially important fish, compared to standard trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2138Tue, 22 Oct 2019 10:59:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames on pots and traps One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames on pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River system (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Corindi River system found that traps fitted with escape frames appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps without escape frames. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2146Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps We found no studies that evaluated the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows on pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2147Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:18:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the mesh size of pots and traps One study examined the effects of increasing the mesh size of pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River system (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Corindi River system found that traps designed with larger mesh appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps of smaller mesh. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2148Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:20:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames and increase the mesh size of pots and traps One study examined the effects of fitting one or more soft, semi-rigid, or rigid grids or frames and increasing the mesh size of pots and traps on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study took place in the Corindi River system (Australia).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Corindi River system found that traps fitted with escape frames and designed with larger mesh appeared to reduce the proportion of unwanted undersized mud crabs caught, compared to conventional traps without escape frames and smaller mesh. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2149Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:21:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2156Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease or non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2157Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Import spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of importing spat and/or eggs to aquaculture facilities rather than juveniles and adults to reduce the risk of introducing hitchhiking species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2160Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:11:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Genetically modify non-native, invasive or other problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of genetically modifying non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2170Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:19:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish pollution emergency plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing pollution emergency plans on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2177Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:28:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Improve fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste production We found no studies that evaluated the effects of improving fish food and pellets to reduce aquaculture waste production on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2192Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:02:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish aquaculture to extract the nutrients from run-offs We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing aquaculture to extract the nutrients from run-offs on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2200https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2200Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:11:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish community-based fisheries management One study examined the effects of establishing community-based fisheries management on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based had more New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest. Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Foveaux Straight found that a customary fisheries area where management was community-based, tended to have smaller New Zealand scallops compared to a protected area prohibiting all fishing and an area allowing recreational harvest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2242https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2242Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging with stakeholders when designating a Marine Protected Area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:41:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish size limitations for the capture of recreational species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of establishing size limitations for the capture of recreational species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘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%2F2274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2274Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:49:38 +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