Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control fire risk using mechanical shrub control and/or prescribed burningOne replicated controlled trial in mixed temperate forest in the USA showed that for bee conservation, it is best to control fire using cutting and burning combined. This increases herbaceous plant cover in subsequent years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F37https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F37Thu, 20 May 2010 12:49:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control deployment of hives/ nests We have found no direct evidence for the effects of excluding Apis mellifera hives, or nests of other managed pollinators, on populations of wild bees. '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%2F39https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F39Thu, 20 May 2010 13:54:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-native plants on farmland (such as Himalayan Balsam, Japanese knotweed) Two randomized, replicated, controlled trials in the Czech Republic found that removing all flower heads of giant hogweed plants at peak flowering time dramatically reduced seed production in giant hogweed. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F104https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F104Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:59:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control bracken One systematic review found that the herbicide asulam reduced bracken abundance if applied repeatedly, but cutting may be equally effective. A replicated laboratory trial in the UK found that the herbicide asulam inhibited the growth of three common moss species that commonly grow in association with bracken, when exposed over three weeks, but not if only exposed for 24 hours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F105https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F105Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control grey squirrels We have captured no evidence for the effects of controlling grey squirrels on farmland wildlife. '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%2F106https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F106Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:01:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control avian predators on islands Out of 10 studies, six before-and-after studies from North America, Australia and Europe found that controlling avian predators led to increased population sizes, reduced mortality or increased reproductive success in seabirds on islands. The North American studies had several interventions, so increases could not be linked directly to predator control, and one found that increases were only at one of two sites studied. Two controlled studies in Europe found little evidence that crow control led to increased reproductive success in gamebirds or raptors on islands. A North American study found that, despite higher reproductive success, very few birds returned to the study site after predator removal. A study from North America found that an Atlantic puffin Fratercula arctica translocation programme, combined with the culling of predatory gulls, appeared to be successful. A study from the UK found that the number of common terns Sterna hirundo and black-headed gulls Larus ridibundus declined on gravel islands despite the attempted control of large gulls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F372https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F372Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:43:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islandsThe assessment of the effectiveness of this intervention was based on a total of 33 studies across all species groups. See Background section below for links to the evidence for the control of mammalian predators on islands on specific species groups. A paired sites study from Finland and a literature review from the UK found increased bird species richness and abundance or population recoveries and recolonisations, following the control or eradication of mammalian predators. Predators removed included American mink Mustela vison, rats Rattus spp. pigs Sus scrofa, cats Felis catus, dogs Canis familiaris and grey fox Dusicyon griseus. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F373https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F373Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:31:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for gamebirdsA single replicated and controlled study on two Swedish islands found that four species of gamebirds had larger broods, and more females had chicks, when predators were controlled. Two of the species also showed population-level responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F376https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F376Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:51:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control mammalian predators on islands for parrotsTwo before-and-after studies in New Zealand found reduced nest predation and successful recolonisation of an island following invasive mammal eradication or control. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F381https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F381Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:38:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive ants on islandsA replicated, randomised and controlled, before-and-after paired sites study in the USA found temporarily increased fledging success, but no decrease in injuries inflicted by Solenopsis geminata on wedge-tailed shearwaters Puffinus pacificus following ant control. However, there was no change in fledging success or injury rate on an island dominated by the big-headed ant Pheidole megacephala following its eradication, either on the experimental or control island. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F383https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F383Wed, 08 Aug 2012 15:13:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plants One before-and-after study in the UK found that aquatic and terrestrial habitat management that included controlling swamp stonecrop, along with release of captive-reared toadlets, tripled a population of natterjack toads. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that Oregon spotted frogs laid eggs in areas where invasive reed canarygrass had been mown more frequently than where it was not mown. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F823https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F823Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:04:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive predators One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive predators on bat populations. The study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in New Zealand found that controlling ship rats resulted in increased survival probabilities for female long-tailed bats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1007https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1007Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:37:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive plant species One study evaluated the effects of controlling invasive plant species on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven forest fragments where invasive plant species had been removed alongside other restoration practices had significantly higher bat activity (relative abundance) than two unrestored forest fragments. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1008https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1008Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:42:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control birds One controlled study in Australia found that removing bell-miners from narrow-leaved peppermint forests did not improve the health of the trees in the forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1151https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1151Wed, 18 May 2016 14:46:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Construct water detention areas to slow water flow and restore riparian forests We found no evidence for the effects of constructing water detention areas to slow water flow and restore riparian forests on forests. '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%2F1186https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1186Thu, 19 May 2016 11:44:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control large herbivore populations We found no evidence of the effects of controlling large herbivore populations on forests. '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%2F1198https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1198Thu, 19 May 2016 13:14:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling inter-specific competition for food through exclusion or translocation 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1520https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1520Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:31:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling habitat-altering mammals through exclusion or translocation 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1532https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1532Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:29:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control 'reservoir' species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources We found no evidence for the effects of controlling ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources 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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1552https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1552Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:12:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control invasive non-predatory competitors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling invasive non-predatory competitors of bats on bat populations. ‘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%2F1999https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1999Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:25:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control harmful invasive bat prey species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling harmful invasive bat prey species on bat populations. ‘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%2F2000https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2000Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:26:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of controlling firewood collection in remnant native forest and woodland. ‘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%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2632https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2632Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:46:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions Eight studies examined the effects of controlling human activity in a marine protected area with a zonation system of restrictions on marine fish populations. Three studies were in the Indian Ocean (South Africa), two were in the Coral Sea (Australia), and one was in each of the Southern Atlantic Ocean (South Africa), the Ligurian Sea (Italy) and the Philippine Sea (Philippines). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in the Philippine Sea found a higher number of fish species in the no-fishing/no access zone of a multi-zoned marine protected area compared to two partially fished zones and unprotected fished areas 10 to 15 years after implementation. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Condition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies in the southern Atlantic Ocean, Ligurian Sea, Indian Ocean and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in marine protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in larger average lengths of steentjies and three seabream species three years after implementation compared to unprotected fished areas, and lengths were largest within a no-take zone than a partially fished zone. Two other studies found larger sizes of four of four coral reef fish in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions two to seven years after protection, and of two of six fish feeding groups in no-entry zones compared to both no-take and fished zones protected between 10 and 20 years. Abundance (6 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Ligurian Sea, Philippine Sea and the Coral Sea found that controlling human activity in protected areas with a zonation system of restrictions resulted in a greater biomass and/or abundance of fish species after 3–15 years compared to unprotected areas outside, and between the zones fish abundance varied with the level of restriction and between individual fish groups and sizes. The other two studies found higher density, biomass, and abundance of fish in non-fished zones (no-entry and no-take) compared to fished zones inside areas protected for 10 to 27 years depending on region, but the effect varied between fish feeding groups, zone protection level and reef region. One site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found higher abundances of four of four reef fish species in a zone where nearly all fishing is prohibited, compared to an adjacent zone with fewer fishing restrictions. One site comparison study in the Southern Atlantic Ocean found that steentjies in a protected zone closed to fishing but open to other recreational activities had a different age and sex structure to a fished multipurpose zone, and both were different to a distant unprotected fished site with low steentjie exploitation. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the Indian Ocean found that in marine protected areas with zonation systems of activity controls, most of the individuals of the reef fish species tagged and released inside the protected areas were recaptured again at almost the same locations over the following nine or four years, and mainly in the zones where all or nearly all fishing was prohibited for up to 20 years, indicating increased protection from fishing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2674https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2674Fri, 20 Nov 2020 16:38:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Contain or recover oil following spills We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of containing or recovering oil following spills. ‘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%2F3574https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3574Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:15:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control ectoparasites in wild reptile populations One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of controlling ectoparasites in wild reptile populations. This study was in New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled study in New Zealand found that McCann’s skinks treated for mites had more successful pregnancies and produced more viable offspring than untreated skinks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3704https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3704Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:06:39 +0000