Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dumping We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits for change in sediment particle size during rock dump 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%2F2055https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2055Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:30:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove pipelines and infrastructure following decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing pipelines and infrastructure in place following decommissioning 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%2F2060https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2060Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:42:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove drill cuttings after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing drill cuttings after decommissioning 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%2F2064https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2064Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:47:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate extraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits for change in sediment particle size during aggregate extraction 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%2F2072https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2072Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:19:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing discarded sediment material from the seabed following cessation of aggregate extraction 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%2F2074https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2074Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines at one location We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits on the area that can be covered by utility and service lines at one location 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%2F2080https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2080Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:47:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove utility and service lines after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing utility and service lines after decommissioning 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%2F2084https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2084Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set limits on hull depth We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting limits on hull depth 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%2F2094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2094Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:23:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting commercial catch quotas 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%2F2105https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2105Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:33:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set habitat credits systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting habitat credits systems 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%2F2106https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2106Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:34:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting commercial catch quotas and habitat credits systems 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%2F2107https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2107Tue, 22 Oct 2019 09:34:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing biofouling organisms/species in aquaculture 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%2F2163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2163Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:13:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or capture non-native, invasive or other problematic species One study examined the effects of removing or capturing non-native, invasive or other problematic species on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Cnidarian abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that, regardless of the method used, removing invasive corals reduced the cover of native zoanthids. Sponge abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the southwest Atlantic found that the effect of removing invasive corals on the cover of native sponges varied with the removal method used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2173Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:23:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set or improve minimum sewage treatment standards One study examined the effects of improving minimum sewage treatment standards on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Bay of Biscay (Spain).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate community composition at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, invertebrate richness and diversity at an impacted site did not significantly change compared to unimpacted sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Bay of Biscay found that after introducing a secondary treatment of sewage wastewaters, total cover of invertebrates significantly increased at an impacted site at 8 m but not 3 m depth, compared to unimpacted sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2180Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:36:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or clean-up oil pollution following a spill One study examined the effects of removing and cleaning-up oil pollution following a spill on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was in the Baltic Proper (Sweden).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Mollusc condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Baltic Proper found that after cleaning-up spilled oil using high pressure hot water, crude oil content increased in mussels and did not naturally decrease over time, and was higher than in mussels from an uncleaned contaminated and a non-contaminated site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2183Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:43:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting regulatory ban on marine burial of nuclear waste 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%2F2184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2184Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:44:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove litter from the marine environment We found no studies that evaluated the effects of removing litter from the marine environment 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%2F2204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2204Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:15:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict the use of tributyltin or other toxic antifouling coatings Four studies examined the effects of restricting the use of tributyltin as an antifouling coating on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was located in the English Channel (UK), two in the River Crouch estuary (UK), and one in Otsuchi Bay (Japan).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, invertebrate community composition changed, but that changes varied with locations. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the River Crouch estuary found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, overall invertebrate species richness and diversity increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Molluscs condition (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the English Channel found that after restricting the use of tributyltin, there was a decrease in its concentration in dogwhelks and the penis length of female dogwhelks. Crustacean condition (1 study): One study in Otsuchi Bay found that after restricting the use of tributyltin its concentration decreased in skeleton shrimps. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2214Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:30:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following extreme events We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitats and/or habitat-forming species following extreme events 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%2F2216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2216Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:34:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore mussel beds Two studies examined the effects of restoring mussel beds (not by transplanting or translocating mussels) on mussels and mussel bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate community composition in restored plots was different to that of unrestored plots. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, overall invertebrate community composition in plots restored with shells and mussels was different to plots restored without mussels (shells only), and both were different to unrestored plots and to nearby natural horse mussel beds. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate species diversity was lower in restored plots compared to unrestored plots, but species richness was similar. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, species richness and diversity were higher in restored plots with mussels and shells compared to plots with shells only, and similar to nearby natural horse mussel beds. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate abundance was higher in restored plots compared to unrestored plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs Eight studies examined the effects of restoring oyster reefs (not by transplanting or translocating oysters) on oysters and oyster reef-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was a global review, four were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one was in the Mission-Aransas estuary (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, the community composition of combined mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used, but the other found that composition varied with the material used. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was similar in reefs restored by laying rocks regardless of age, in young reefs restored by laying oyster shells, and in natural reefs, but lower in old shell-restored reefs. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was higher in all restored reefs than on unrestored sediment, but that diversity varied between the restoration materials used. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that diversity of fish, crabs and shrimps varied with the restoration material used. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on the abundance of reef-associated invertebrates depended on the material used for restoration and the age of the reef. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that abundance of combined reef-associated mobile decapod invertebrate and fish was similar on all restored reefs regardless of the restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, crab abundance, but not biomass, and shrimp biomass, but not abundance, varied with the restoration material used. Oyster abundance (6 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster reefs restored by laying rocks had similar oyster abundance to natural reefs, and higher than reefs restored by laying oyster shells. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that oyster cover and abundance varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, that for those placed below MLLW, keeping them there led to similar cover compared to moving them above MLLW halfway through the study, and that placing the lines on cobbly seabed led to similar cover compared to placing them on muddy seabed. Oyster reproductive success (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher recruitment of oyster spat on clam shells than by lacing lines above MLLW, that recruitment was higher on lines placed on cobbly seabed than on muddy seabed, and that recruitment was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster survival (5 studies): One global systematic review found that two of nine restoration techniques (restoring oyster reef by transplanting juveniles, and by creating no-harvest sanctuaries) assessed resulted in over 85% survival of restored oysters. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar survival of oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to higher survival than keeping then below, that survival was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that survival was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster condition (5 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on average spat size varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar growth of oysters on the shells than placing lines above MLLW. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by non-native species than placing lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to lower cover than keeping then below, that cover was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that cover of clam shells by non-native species was higher on lines placed near compared to far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:37:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows Three studies examined the effects of restoring seagrass beds (not by transplanting or translocating seagrass) on seagrass bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. One was in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Indian Ocean (Kenya), and one in the Florida Keys (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed had no effect on overall invertebrate community composition, but adding sand led to communities different from both unrestored and natural sites. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed and adding sand, overall invertebrate species richness was similar at restored, unrestored, and natural sites. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar invertebrate diversity on mimic leaves and in the surrounding sediment, and similar species richness on mimic leaves at all restored sites as on natural seagrass leaves. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after restoring seagrass beds, the abundance of mobile invertebrates had increased and was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but the abundance of sessile invertebrates had not increased. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar abundance of invertebrate in the surrounding sediment across sites, and resulted in different abundance of invertebrates on mimic leaves between sites although all had lower abundances than on natural seagrass leaves. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed or adding sand, overall invertebrate abundance was not different at restored sites compared to both unrestored and natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore coastal lagoons Three studies examined the effects restoring coastal lagoons on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Chilika lagoon (India), and two in East Harbor lagoon (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration total crustacean species richness decreased, but changes varied with species groups (decreases in prawn and crab species; increases in lobster species). The lagoon also hosted new species not found before. Mollusc richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their species richness increased in the first three years but later decreased over the following six. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration abundances of prawns and crabs increased. Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their total abundance increased in the first three years, but later decreased over the following six. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:48:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Repurpose obsolete offshore structures to act as artificial reefs One study examined the effects of repurposing obsolete offshore structures on subtidal benthic invertebrates. The study was of a sunken oil rig in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall species richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Mediterranean Sea recorded at least 53 invertebrate species having colonised a sunken oil rig after 30 years. Species included 14 species of molluscs, 14 species of worms, and 11 species of crustaceans. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2262Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:57:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Set recreational catch quotas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of setting recreational catch quotas 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%2F2273https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2273Wed, 23 Oct 2019 12:49:13 +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