Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean birds following oil spills Three studies from South Africa and Australia found high survival of rehabilitated penguins and plovers or similar survival to un-oiled birds. However a large study from the USA and Canada found that rehabilitated common guillemots Uria aalge had significantly lower survival than untreated birds. Three studies from South Africa and Australia found that rehabilitated birds bred, with one finding that rehabilitated birds had similar breeding success to un-oiled birds. However, this study found that birds rehabilitated after a second spill were less likely to breed, whilst two other studies found that rehabilitated birds had lower success than un-oiled birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F448https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F448Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:12:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate birds following oil spillsA replicated study in South Africa found that a higher percentage of African penguins Spheniscus demersus that were relocated following an oil spill bred at their old colonies, compared to birds which were rehabilitated after being oiled, despite fewer relocated birds being seen at their home colony. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F449https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F449Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter or prevent birds from landing on toxic pools We found no evidence for the effects of deterring or preventing birds from landing on toxic pools '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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F450https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F450Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:28:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by mining or sewage Two studies found lower bird mortality or fewer birds rescued from toxic ponds when deterrent systems were used. Four of five studies found that fewer birds landed on pools with deterrents than controls, although one of these found that the effect was weaker for grebes compared to wildfowl and absent for waders. One study that used regular broadcasts of different sounds found that it had no impact on bird behaviour. Two studies investigated different systems and found that radar-operated systems were more effective than systems that worked at random intervals. One of these studies also found that loud noises were more effective than moving peregrine falcons Falco peregrinus models. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F452https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F452Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:32:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by miningA randomised, replicated and controlled ex situ trial from the USA found that fewer common starlings Sturnus vulgaris consumed contaminated water when it was treated with repellents, compared to untreated water. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F453https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F453Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:51:48 +0100