Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from freshwater marshes.   ‘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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3161https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3161Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:48:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from brackish/salt marshes. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that overall vegetation cover in patches where debris had been removed remained lower than in undisturbed marsh for one growing season, but had recovered to match undisturbed marsh after two growing seasons. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, the two replicated, site comparison studies in salt marshes in the USA found that the abundance of dominant herb species in impacted vegetation patches was typically lower than in undisturbed marsh one growing season after removing debris, but was sometimes similar to undisturbed marsh. The results depended on the species, metric and type of debris removed. One of the studies also monitored until the second growing season after removing debris; at this point, the cover of both dominant herb species had recovered to match undisturbed marsh. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that the maximum height of smooth cordgrass recovered, to match undisturbed marsh, within 45 weeks of removing debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3162https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3162Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3163https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3163Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3164https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3164Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage litteringWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage littering in/near marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3165https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3165Tue, 06 Apr 2021 13:16:24 +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