Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Weight baits or lines to reduce longline bycatch of seabirds Three replicated and controlled studies found evidence for reduced bycatch in some species when using weighted lines. One study found low bycatch rates, but was uncontrolled. In Hawaii and New Zealand, rates of bait loss and bycatch of albatrosses Phoebastria spp., white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis and sooty shearwaters Puffinus griseus were much lower with weighted baits or integrated weight lines than with control lines. In the North Pacific, two trials found that bycatch rates of some species was reduced when using weights, but that shearwaters Puffinus spp. attacked weighted lines more often. A study off New Zealand found that attaching weights to lines had only localised effects on sink-rate.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F296https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F296Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:07:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of hydrogen peroxide No evidence was found for use of hydrogen peroxide to control water primrose. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1141Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:26:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of liquid nitrogen No evidence was found for use of liquid nitrogen to control water primrose. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1142https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1142Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:27:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water primrose: Use of mats placed on the bottom of the water body No evidence was found for use of mats placed on the bottom of a water body to control water primrose. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1144https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1144Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water seedlings One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Spain found that watering tree seedlings increased survival during a dry summer but only increased the survival of some species during a wet summer, depending on the habitat. Watering increased or had no effect on seedling emergence depending on habitat and water availability.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1154Wed, 18 May 2016 15:16:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsWater use (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one found that cover crops used more water than bare fallows, and one found no difference in water use. Water availability (16 studies) Water content (9 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Water loss (6 studies): Five controlled studies (four replicated, three randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost (through drainage, runoff, or evaporation) from plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more water was lost through drainage from plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Water infiltration (3 studies): Of two replicated, controlled studies from the USA, one found that more water filtered into soils with cover crops, and one found no difference in infiltration between plots with or without winter cover crops. One controlled study from the USA found that more water percolated deep into the soil in part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to part with a winter fallow. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Nutrients (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that less nitrate was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from part of a field with a winter cover crop and part with a winter fallow. This study also found less ammonium and dissolved carbon, but more phosphorus, in runoff from the part with the winter cover crop, in some comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One controlled study from the USA found less suspended sediment in runoff from part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to a winter fallow, in some comparisons. Implementation options (5 studies): One study from Spain found more water in soils with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term, in some comparisons. Two studies from Spain and the USA found differences in water availability between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found differences in nitrate leaching between plots with different cover crops. One study from the USA found similar infiltration rates under different cover crops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357Thu, 04 May 2017 13:33:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add compost to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and the USA found more water in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soil with or without added compost. One replicated, controlled study from Spain found that less water was lost as runoff from soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in one of four comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in runoff from plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added compost, if the compost was split into two small applications, compared to one large application.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1377Mon, 15 May 2017 15:18:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add manure to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found more water in soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Greece and the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added manure. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more dissolved organic carbon, but similar amounts of nitrate, in runoff from plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more nitrate, ammonium, phosphorus, potassium, and organic matter was leached from soils with added manure, compared to soils without added manure. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1378Mon, 15 May 2017 15:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add sewage sludge to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Spain found less runoff from plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it, in one of four comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added sewage sludge. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from soils with added sewage sludge, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Portugal found that more nitrate was leached from plots with a split application of sewage sludge, but not with a single application, compared to plots without added sewage sludge.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1379Mon, 15 May 2017 15:23:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Add slurry to the soilWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of water in soils with or without added slurry, and another one found similar amounts of water-filled pore space. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more nitrate was leached from plots with added slurry, compared to plots without it. One of these studies also found that more nitrate was lost in runoff from plots with added slurry, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from plots with or without added slurry. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more dissolved organic matter in soils, or leached from soils, with added slurry. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (3 studies): One study from Spain found that less nitrate was leached from plots with surface application, compared to injection, of slurry. One study from Spain found that less nitrate was lost through runoff and leaching from plots with less added slurry, compared to more. One study from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in soils with digested or untreated pig slurry, and another found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with less or more added slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1380Mon, 15 May 2017 15:25:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicWater use (0 studies) Water availability (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of water-filled pore space in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France and Turkey found more water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one of two comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found that less nitrate was lost from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that more dissolved organic matter was lost, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more nitrate in runoff from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Portugal and Spain found that similar amounts of nitrogen were lost from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found that less nitrate, but more organic matter, was leached from plots that were fertilized with manure, compared to slurry.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1381https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1381Mon, 15 May 2017 15:31:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsWater use (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found that plants used more water in plots with ground cover, compared to plots with bare soil. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found inconsistent differences in water use (sometimes less, sometimes more) between plots with ground cover and plots with tilled soil. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from Portugal and the USA found that plants used similar amounts of water in plots with different types of ground cover. Water availability (17 studies) Water content (13 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled; one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found less water, or less available water in some comparisons, in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and the USA found more water, or more available water, in soils with ground cover, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found inconsistent differences in water content (sometimes less, sometimes more) in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to bare or tilled soils. Three replicated studies (two randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Chile, France, and Portugal found similar amounts of water in soils with or without ground cover. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Chile and the USA found greater water infiltration or soil porosity in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soil, but one replicated, controlled study from France did not. Water loss (7 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Chile, France, Italy, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost as runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare or tilled plots, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent differences in runoff between plots with ground cover and plots with tilled soil. Implementation options (5 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different amounts of water in soils with different types of ground cover, but two studies from Portugal and the USA did not. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found less nitrogen, phosphorus, and dissolved organic carbon in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to plots with bare soil. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrate, nitrogen, and phosphorus in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soils. Sediments (4 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile, Spain, and the USA found less sediment in runoff from plots with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soil, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from France found similar amounts of sediment in runoff from plots with seeded cover crops or bare soil.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1382https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1382Mon, 15 May 2017 15:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use crop rotationsWater use (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower water-use efficiency in plots with crop rotations, compared to continuous wheat, in some comparisons. Water availability (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia found similar amounts of water in soils with crop rotations or continuous crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found inconsistent differences in water storage in soils with or without crop rotations. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One study from Spain found no difference in water-use efficiency between plots with different crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1383Mon, 15 May 2017 15:45:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage in arable fieldsWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that barley used water more efficiently in plots without tillage, compared to plots with tillage, in some comparisons. Water availability (14 studies): Nine controlled studies (eight replicated and randomized) from Spain and the USA found more water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found less water in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Spain and the USA sometimes found more water, and sometimes found less water, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower porosity in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1384Mon, 15 May 2017 15:49:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillageWater use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of four comparisons. Water availability (9 studies): Six controlled studies from Spain (five of which were replicated and randomized) found more water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less water in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in one of fifteen comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia and Lebanon found similar amounts of water in soils with no tillage or reduced tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1385Mon, 15 May 2017 15:53:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsWater use (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that crops used water more efficiently in plots with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but crops used water less efficiently in plots with shallow tillage, compared to deep tillage. Water availability (14 studies) Water content (12 studies): Six controlled studies (five replicated and randomized) from Egypt and Spain found more water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and the USA found less water in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four controlled studies from Egypt, Italy, and Spain (three of which were replicated and randomized), found similar amounts of water in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Water loss (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less water was lost through drainage from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, during the growing season, but more water was lost during the fallow season, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less water was lost through runoff from soils with less-frequent tillage (one pass with a plough, compared to two), but more water was lost through runoff from soils with shallow tillage, compared deep tillage. Water infiltration (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that water infiltration rates were faster in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that water infiltration rates were similar in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies) Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found more water and faster water infiltration rates in soils that were tilled at slower tractor speeds, but found that water losses and water-use efficiencies were similar in plots that were tilled at different tractor speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found that water-use efficiencies were similar in plots with different types of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking, compared to double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1386Mon, 15 May 2017 15:58:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Plant buffer stripsWater use (0 studies) Water availability (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with buffers, compared to plots without buffers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of water were lost as runoff from plots with or without buffers. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated study from the USA found that grass buffer strips decreased the amount of Cryptosporidium parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff, after bovine manure was applied to slopes. Nutrients (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrate in runoff from irrigated pastures with buffer strips, but another one found no differences in nitrate or phosphorus in runoff from pastures with or without buffer strips. Sediments (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found less sediment in runoff from irrigated fields or pastures with buffers, compared to those without buffers, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (3 studies): One replicated study from the USA found less C. parvum (a protozoan pathogen) in runoff from flatter buffer strips, compared to steeper. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more soil moisture in plots with narrower buffer strips, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that buffers trapped more runoff in the four weeks after fertilizer application, compared to the next 10 weeks.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1387Mon, 15 May 2017 16:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Restore habitat along watercoursesWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated site comparison in the USA found similar amounts of water, in soils, in restored and remnant riparian habitats. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1388Mon, 15 May 2017 16:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Exclude grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (4 studies): Four studies (three replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands and shrublands in the USA and Spain found less water in areas with cattle and sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in wet grasslands in the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH in surface water in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies found more nitrate in stream water in ungrazed areas, compared to grazed areas, in one of two experiments. Sediments (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in surface water turbidity between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1389Mon, 15 May 2017 16:04:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use fewer grazersWater use (0 studies) Water availability (0 studies) Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no differences in nitrate and pH levels in surface water between areas grazed by cattle at low or moderate intensities. Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1390Mon, 15 May 2017 16:07:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Use seasonal grazingWater use (0 studies) Water availability (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found that pools were wet for longer in continuously, compared to seasonally, grazed plots. Pathogens and pesticides (0 studies) Nutrients (0 studies) Sediments (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1391Mon, 15 May 2017 16:09:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Work inward from barriers or boundaries (e.g. river) to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat We found no evidence for the effects of working inward from barriers or boundaries to avoid pushing primates toward an impassable barrier or inhospitable habitat on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1498Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:51:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and bacterial diseases to primates One study in Uganda found that a confiscated young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being handled by caretakers wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and visitors wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:58:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. We found no evidence for the effects of wearing gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:41:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear snowshoes to prevent trampling We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of wearing snowshoes to prevent trampling. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1754Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:32:51 +0000
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