Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide new technologies to reduce harvesting pressure on vegetationWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of providing new technologies to reduce harvesting pressure on vegetation in 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%2F3014https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3014Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:22:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes. There were three studies in the USA and one in each of the Netherlands and Japan. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported that the area covered by marsh vegetation was higher five years after dechannelizing a river than 10 years before. Community types (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported changes in the area covered by different marsh plant communities over five years after dechannelizing a river compared to 10 years before. Community composition (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported changes in the overall plant community composition after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness was greater in restored slacks (groundwater extraction stopped five years previously, along with other interventions) than in mature unmanaged slacks. One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total plant species richness tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before, but that there was no significant difference for diversity. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified the richness of characteristic plant species – typical of dune slacks or nutrient-rich marshes – over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total vegetation cover tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table prevented increases in understory vegetation cover over the following year. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified total vegetation over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Cover never exceeded 50%. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table had no significant effect on cover of sedges Carex There were similar increases in dammed and undammed marshes over one year. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported changes in the cover of wetland- and habitat-characteristic plant species over nine years after raising the water table. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this intervention on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported that rewetted floodplain marshes became dominated by a non-native wetland shrub, approximately 4–9 years after raising the water table. One replicated study of a freshwater wetland in the USA reported that the effects of reflooding on the density of emergent plant species depended on the species and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3026https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3026Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes. One study was in the Netherlands and one was in Tunisia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (2 study): One before-and-after study of a lakeshore brackish/salt marsh in Tunisia reported an increase in coverage of bulrush-dominated vegetation relative to salt marsh vegetation over three years after modifying a canal to retain water in the marsh. One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported increased coverage of pioneer succulent plant communities, and reduced coverage of short-grass communities, over approximately 10 years following abandonment of the drainage system (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness increased over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that some individual plant species became more common over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). These included saltbush Atriplex prostrata and seablite Suaeda maritima. Some other species became less common, including creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera and common cordgrass Spartina anglica. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3027https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3027Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded 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%2F3028https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3028Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded 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%2F3029https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3029Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to prevent wild firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of raising the water level to prevent wild fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3079https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3079Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:56:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Put up signs to discourage firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation or human behaviour, of putting up signs to discourage fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3081https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3081Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:59:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas. The study was in Brazil. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that the overall plant community composition (excluding rice) was similar in organically farmed fields and conventionally farmed fields, but different from the community in nearby natural marshes. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that organically farmed rice fields contained a similar average richness and diversity of wetland plants (at any single point in time) to conventionally farmed rice fields, although more species were recorded in the organic fields over the year of the study. Organically farmed rice fields had lower wetland plant richness and diversity than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of rice fields in Brazil found that organically farmed fields contained more wetland plant biomass than conventionally farmed fields over the year of the study, but less wetland plant biomass than nearby natural marshes. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3152https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3152Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the marshes or adjacent areas.   ‘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%2F3153https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3153Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the swamps or adjacent areas.   ‘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%2F3154https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3154Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer or herbicide use: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of reducing the amount of fertilizer or herbicide used in the swamps or adjacent areas.   ‘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%2F3155https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3155Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:48:59 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses or habitat types. Twenty-one studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Israel, the UK, China, Luxembourg and Canada. Eight studies used sites from a common set of 62 restored prairie potholes in the Midwest USA. Five studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in Florida. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (5 studies): One replicated, paired, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA reported that damming a stream reduced the area of emergent vegetation on the floodplain. Two before-and-after studies of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of emergent herbaceous vegetation increased. Two studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified coverage of wetland vegetation 1–6 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Community types (9 studies): Nine studies quantified the effect of this action on specific types of marsh vegetation. For example, one before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported greatly increased coverage of wet prairie plant communities after dechannelizing a river to raise the water table, but only slightly increased coverage of mixed herbaceous/shrubby wetland communities. Five studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified the number, abundance or extent of wetland plant communities present 1–6 years after raising the water table (typically along with other interventions). Community composition (8 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) in the USA evaluated the effects of rewetting farmed depressions (along with planting cover crops in/around them). One of these studies reported that restored wetlands contained a different overall plant community to natural wetlands after 5–7 years. One study reported that the plant community composition differed more between restored and natural wetlands than amongst restored or natural wetlands. The final study found that restoration increased vegetation quality after ≥10 years, but not to the level of natural wetlands. Two site comparison studies in China and the USA reported that the plant community became more similar to natural wetlands over 6–15 years after raising the water level – in terms of species composition or overall wetness. Three replicated studies in the USA simply quantified the plant community composition for up to three years after rewetting farmland (sometimes along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) of one set of historically farmed depressions in the USA reported that restored wetlands (rewetted, along with planting cover crops in/around the sites) had lower overall plant species richness than nearby natural wetlands, after 1–7 years. Two before-and-after, site comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that raising the water level reduced overall plant species richness in the following six years. One site comparison study of lakeshore marshes in China reported that the total plant species richness in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. Five studies (two replicated) in the USA and Israel simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity between three months and 19 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site-comparison study of a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level had no clear effect on the richness of wetland-characteristic plant species in the following six years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                                             Overall abundance (9 studies): Three before-and-after, site-comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following 6–9 years. One site comparison study in China reported that vegetation biomass in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. In contrast, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that vegetation cover in rewetted, formerly farmed depressions (also planted with cover crops) was lower than in nearby natural wetlands, after 5–7 years. Four studies (two replicated) in the USA and the UK simply quantified vegetation abundance between three months and six years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (4 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also site comparisons) of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level increased the abundance of habitat- and/or wetland-characteristic plant species in the following 6–9 years. One study in the UK simply quantified the abundance of wet meadow plant species present 3–5 years after rewetting farmland (and introducing grazing). Bryophyte abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the frequency of bryophytes in (the wettest parts of) marshes rewetted 34 years previously was not significantly different from their frequency in (the wettest parts of) nearby natural marshes. Individual species abundance (11 studies): Eleven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study of freshwater marshes in the USA reported that Kneiff’s feathermoss Leptodictyum riparium was the most abundant plant species in marshes rewetted 34 years previously and nearby natural marshes. One before-and-after study of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, some plots became dominated by a non-native grass species. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3198https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3198Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:44:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land uses or habitat types. Both studies were in the same area of Iraq, but used different study sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (1 study): One before-and-after study of a slightly brackish marsh in Iraq reported that fewer plant community types were present three years after reflooding than before drainage. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies of brackish marshes in Iraq reported that fewer plant species were present three years after reflooding than before drainage. One of these studies also reported that individual plant communities typically had lower diversity after reflooding than before drainage. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of a slightly brackish marsh in Iraq reported that six of seven studied plant communities had lower spring and/or summer biomass three years after reflooding than before drainage. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3199https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3199Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses or habitat types. Both studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of shrubby and forested wetlands increased – reaching greater coverage than before intervention, but also than before degradation. Community types (1 study): The same study broke down overall swamp coverage into specific community types. For example, most of the shrubby wetlands that developed after raising the water level were dominated by a non-native species – which was not present historically. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                                             Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study of historical shrubby wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following nine years. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): The same study reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, only one of two sites became dominated by wetland-characteristic shrubs. The other site remained dominated by wetland-characteristic herb species. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level slightly increased cover of buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis in one of two sites (no data for other site). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3200https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3200Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land uses or habitat types.   ‘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%2F3201https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3201Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level (before/after planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level in areas planted with emergent marsh/swamp 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%2F3274https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3274Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:03:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of non-woody plants before planting: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting.   ‘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%2F3355https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3355Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:23:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of non-woody plants before planting: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting.   ‘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%2F3356https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3356Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:23:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: freshwater wetlands Two studies evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting. Both studies were in the USA. One study was in a laboratory. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in created wetlands in the USA reported that root-pruned red maple Acer rubrum seedlings had a higher survival rate than unpruned seedlings, 1–2 years after planting. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings had similar survival rates, 108 days after planting. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a laboratory in the USA found that root-pruned and unpruned Nuttall oak Quercus nuttallii seedlings grew in height by a similar amount over the first 108 days after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3357https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3357Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:24:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prune roots of trees/shrubs before planting: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of pruning their roots before planting.   ‘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%2F3358https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3358Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:24:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide general protection for marshes or swamps Three studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of providing general protection for marshes or swamps. There was one study in each of Puerto Rico, China and Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two studies in China and Canada reported that the area of wetlands (including habitats other than marshes or swamps) in their study regions declined over 10–29 years, despite general protection of wetlands. However, in China, the decline was slower than in a previous period without protection. One before-and-after study of mangrove forests in Puerto Rico reported that their area increased following legal protection. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One before-and-after study in China reported degradation in wetland landscape structure over 29 years when wetlands were generally protected. However, the decline was slower than in a previous period when wetlands were not protected. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3385https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3385Mon, 12 Apr 2021 09:30:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise public awareness about marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of interventions to raise public awareness about 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%2F3389https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3389Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:52:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education/training programmes about marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of providing education/training programmes related to marshes or swamps. One study was in Kenya and one was in Vietnam. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Human behaviour (2 studies): One study in Kenya reported that after a series of seminars and workshops about marsh conservation, two community-based management groups were established by local stakeholders and a grazing fee was introduced. One before-and-after study in Vietnam reported that after local people were trained to make more complex handicrafts from marsh plants (along with helping them to sell those handicrafts in markets), their income increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3391https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3391Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:55:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Produce guidance for marsh or swamp conservation One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of producing guidance for marsh or swamp conservation. The study was in Sri Lanka. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Survival (1 study): One study of coastal sites in Sri Lanka found that planted mangrove propagules/seedlings had a higher survival rate in sites where published guidance had been consulted to select appropriate areas for planting, than in sites where guidance was not consulted. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3392https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3392Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:07:08 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue