Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add yellow rattle seed Rhinanthus minor to hay meadows A review of studies from the UK found that adding hay rattle seed helped other sown target meadow species to colonize and that more plant species were found when yellow rattle was present. A randomized, replicated controlled trial in the UK found that yellow rattle could be established on a pasture field by ‘slot seeding’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F129https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F129Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:56:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to forestsA randomised, replicated, controlled study from Australia found that brown treecreeper numbers were higher in plots with large amounts of dead wood added, compared to control plots or those with less debris added. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F344https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F344Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:38:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to ponds We found no evidence for the effects of adding woody debris to ponds on amphibian 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%2F814https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F814Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:09:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt certification One replicated, site comparison study in Ethiopia found that the risk of deforestation was lower in certified than uncertified forests. One controlled, before-and-after trial in Gabon found that when logging intensity was taken into account although tree damage did not differ, changes in above-ground biomass were smaller in certified than in uncertified forests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1150https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1150Tue, 17 May 2016 16:23:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt community-based management to protect forests Two studies from Ethiopia and Nepal (including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison) found that forest cover increased more in community-managed forests than in forests not managed by local communities. One replicated, site comparison study in Colombia found that deforestation rates in community-managed forests did not differ from deforestation rates in forests that were not managed by local communities, or in uninhabited national parks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1152https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1152Wed, 18 May 2016 14:58:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt ecotourism We found no evidence for the effects of adopting ecotourism 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%2F1173https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1173Thu, 19 May 2016 09:46:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt continuous cover forestry We found no evidence for the effects of adopting continuous cover forestry 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%2F1179https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1179Thu, 19 May 2016 10:33:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Adopt conservation grazing of woodland We captured no evidence for the effects of adopting conservation grazing of woodland. '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%2F1192https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1192Thu, 19 May 2016 11:53:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add topsoil Two randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that the addition of topsoil increased the cover or abundance of heathland plant species. One replicated, site comparison in Spain found an increase in the abundance of woody plants. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the number of seedlings for a majority of heathland plants. One controlled study in Namibia found that addition of topsoil increased plant cover and the number of plant species, but that these were lower than at a nearby undisturbed site. One randomized, controlled study in the UK found an increase in the cover of forbs but a reduction in the cover of grasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1686https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1686Mon, 23 Oct 2017 09:45:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add water to peatlands to compensate for drought We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of adding water to peatlands to compensate for drought. ‘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%2F1792https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1792Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:19:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add topsoil (alongside planting/seeding) One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that addition of topsoil alongside sowing of seed increased the biomass of grasses but reduced the biomass of forbs in comparison to addition of topsoil alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1857https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1857Fri, 01 Dec 2017 14:27:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add water to marshes or swamps to compensate for droughtWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding water to marshes or swamps to compensate for drought. ‘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%2F3180https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3180Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:13:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add upland topsoilWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding upland topsoil to restore/create 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%2F3234https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3234Fri, 09 Apr 2021 15:01:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add surface mulch: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using organic mulch to restore or create 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%2F3247https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3247Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:51:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add surface mulch: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using organic mulch to restore or create brackish/salt marshes. The study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study on a sandflat in Australia found that mulched and unmulched plots had similar plant species richness over two years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study on a sandflat in Australia found that mulched plots were more likely to contain glasswort Sarcocornia quinqueflora than unmulched plots, after 20 months. However, mulching had no significant effect on glasswort biomass after 20 months, and typically had no significant effect on glasswort cover over two years. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3248https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3248Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:51:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add surface mulch: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using organic mulch to restore or create 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%2F3249https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3249Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:51:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add surface mulch: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using organic mulch to restore or create 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%2F3250https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3250Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:52:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add upland topsoil before/after planting non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding upland topsoil to freshwater wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. One study was in a greenhouse. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding a mixture of mineral soil and peat to pots of mine tailings before planting water sedge Carex aquatilis typically increased its above-ground biomass two growing seasons later. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Individual plant size (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in a greenhouse in the USA found that mixing topsoil into pots of mineral soil/compost before planting tussock sedge Carex stricta seedlings typically increased the biomass and number of shoots they developed over three months. However, one replicated, paired, controlled study in a wet meadow restoration site in the USA reported that mixing topsoil into the mineral soil/compost substrate before planting tussock sedge seedlings had no clear effect on the number of shoots they developed over two months. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in freshwater trenches in Canada found that adding a mixture of mineral soil and peat to pots of mine tailings either increased or had no significant effect on survival of planted water sedge Carex aquatilis over two growing seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3296https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3296Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:11:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add upland topsoil before/after planting non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding upland topsoil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with emergent, non-woody plants. ‘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%2F3297https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3297Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:11:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add upland topsoil before/after planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding upland topsoil to freshwater wetlands planted with trees/shrubs. ‘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%2F3298https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3298Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:11:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add upland topsoil before/after planting trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of adding upland topsoil to brackish/saline wetlands planted with trees/shrubs. ‘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%2F3299https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3299Sun, 11 Apr 2021 08:11:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add surface mulch before/after planting trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of mulching freshwater wetlands planted with trees/shrubs. The study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in floodplain swamps in Australia found that mulching with woodchips before planting native shrubs had no significant effect on their overall cover, one year later. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study found that mulching with woodchips before planting swamp gum Eucalyptus camphora seedlings had no significant effect on swamp gum cover, one year later. Mulching reduced cover of the problematic herb species in one of two swamps, but had no significant effect in the other. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in floodplain swamps in Australia found that planted swamp gum Eucalyptus camphora seedlings reached a similar height, after one year, in mulched and unmulched plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3314https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3314Sun, 11 Apr 2021 12:06:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add topsoil before seeding/planting One study examined the effects of adding topsoil before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding topsoil before sowing seeds increased plant species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (1 STUDY) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that adding topsoil before sowing seeds increased the biomass of sown species in most cases. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3420https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3420Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:37:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to protect seeds/plants One study examined the effects of adding woody debris to protect seeds/plants on grassland vegetation. The study was in Kenya. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (0 STUDIES) VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Kenya found that sowing buffel grass seeds beside woody debris did not affect seedling survival. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3421https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3421Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:40:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Add woody debris to landscapes Six studies evaluated the effects of adding woody debris to landscapes on reptile populations. Three studies were in Australia, two were in the USA and one was in Indonesia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA, Indonesia and Australia found that areas with added woody debris had similar richness and diversity or richness or of reptiles, rare reptiles and snakes and lizards compared to areas with no added debris. The other study found that areas with added woody debris had higher reptile species richness than areas with no added debris. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two of six replicated studies (including four randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Indonesia and the USA found that areas with added woody debris had a higher abundance of reptiles than areas with no added debris. Three studies found that areas with woody debris had a similar abundance of reptiles and snakes and lizards compared to areas with no added debris. The other study found that pastures with added timber had lower abundance of rare reptile species compared to pastures without timber, but that in pastures with added timber, reptile abundance was higher after 15 months than after 12 months. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3718https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3718Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:33:28 +0000