Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in developed areasWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in developed 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%2F2947https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2947Mon, 01 Mar 2021 16:14:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in farmed areasWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in farmed 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%2F2950https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2950Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:40:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages in areas of energy production or miningWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages in areas of energy production or mining. ‘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%2F2986https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2986Thu, 25 Mar 2021 20:18:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/create habitat linkages across service corridorsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of retaining or creating habitat linkages across transportation or service corridors. ‘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%2F2996https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2996Mon, 29 Mar 2021 12:33:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict vehicle useWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restricting vehicle use in or 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%2F3019https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3019Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:39:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict pedestrian accessWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restricting pedestrian access to 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%2F3022https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3022Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:42:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin vegetation to prevent wild firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of thinning vegetation 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%2F3078https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3078Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Slow down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removedWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh or swamp vegetation, of slowing down input water to allow more time for pollutants to be removed. ‘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%2F3144https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3144Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:14:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. Three studies were in the USA and one was in China. Two studies were largely based on the same sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained a different overall plant community, after 1–20 years, to nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One of the studies also reported differences between marshes in restored vs degraded catchments. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater overall plant species richness than marshes within cropland, and similar richness to marshes within natural grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–20 years, than nearby marshes surrounded by natural vegetation. One before-and-after study of a lakeshore marsh in China reported that after revegetating a polluted input river (along with planting directly into the marsh), overall plant species richness increased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation contained more plant biomass than marshes within cropland, but also more plant biomass than marshes within natural grassland. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the USA found that marshes surrounded by restored upland vegetation typically had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants than marshes within cropland, and similar cover of these species to marshes within natural grassland. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands the USA found that wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation had greater cover of hybrid cattail Typha x glauca, after 2–7 years, than nearby natural wetlands. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands in the USA found that parts of wetlands surrounded by restored upland vegetation created more visual obstruction, after 2–7 years, than the corresponding zone of nearby natural wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3145https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3145Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:14:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/salt marshes, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3146https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3146Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in freshwater swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3147https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3147Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Retain/restore/create vegetation around brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in brackish/saline swamps, of retaining/restoring/creating vegetation around them. ‘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%2F3148https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3148Mon, 05 Apr 2021 15:15:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Stimulate microbial breakdown of oilWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of stimulating microbial breakdown of oil in contaminated 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%2F3178https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3178Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:11:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create freshwater marshes in areas that will be climatically suitable in the futureWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restoring or creating freshwater marshes in areas expected to be climatically suitable in the future. ‘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%2F3186https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3186Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:10:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create freshwater swamps in areas that will be climatically suitable in the futureWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restoring or creating freshwater swamps in areas expected to be climatically suitable in the future. ‘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%2F3188https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3188Tue, 06 Apr 2021 17:11:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (specific action unclear) Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restoring/creating freshwater marshes or swamps using unclear or incompletely described actions. Twenty-three studies were in the USA. Two were in Canada. Two of the studies used the same set of wetlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created wetlands had greater coverage of herbaceous vegetation after 7–8 years than natural wetlands, but lower coverage of forest and shrubby vegetation. Community composition (17 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that the overall plant community composition in created freshwater wetlands differed from the community in natural wetlands, after 1–21 years. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada reported mixed effects of freshwater marsh restoration/creation on overall algal or plant community composition, depending on the habitat and use of mining waste during creation. Of four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada, three reported lower quality vegetation in restored/created wetlands than in natural wetlands, but one reported similar vegetation quality in created and natural wetlands. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that created marshes developed a plant community characteristic of similar wetness to natural marshes within 4–21 years – but in one study, this was only true for created marshes >10 years old. Seven replicated studies in the USA simply quantified the composition, quality or wetness of the plant community up to 22 years after wetland restoration/creation. Overall richness/diversity (17 studies): Eleven replicated studies, in the USA and Canada, compared overall plant richness/diversity in created/restored and natural/unmanaged freshwater wetlands. Five of the studies found that created/restored wetlands typically had similar plant taxonomic richness to natural/unmanaged wetlands. Three of the studies reported lower species richness in created than natural wetlands after 1–18 years. Two of the studies reported higher species richness in created than natural wetlands after 1–21 years. The final study reported mixed effects of marsh creation on plant species richness, depending on the vegetation zone and use of mining waste during creation. Two of the studies reported identical results for plant diversity as for richness (similar or greater in created vs natural wetlands) but one study found that the effect of management on plant diversity depended on the timing of drawdown. Six replicated studies in the USA simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity over 1–16 years after wetland restoration/creation. Native richness/diversity (3 studies): Of two replicated, site comparison studies of freshwater wetlands in the USA, one found that restored/created wetlands contained more native plant species than natural wetlands after 1–11 years. The other found that restored wetlands contained fewer native plant species than natural wetlands after 2–8 years. One replicated study of swamp restoration sites in the USA simply quantified native plant richness over 1–8 years after intervention. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (7 studies): Six replicated studies, all in the USA, compared overall vegetation abundance in created/restored and natural wetlands. Four of the studies found that created/restored freshwater wetlands contained less vegetation (cover or biomass) than natural wetlands after 1–18 years. Two of the studies found that created and natural fresh/brackish/saline wetlands contained a similar amount of vegetation (overall cover and density; wetland plant cover) after >1 year. One of these studies reported that restored wetlands had lower vegetation cover than natural marshes – but this reflected management goals. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified total vegetation cover and biomass 3–10 years after marsh creation. Herb abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created wetlands had greater overall cover of herb species, after 7–8 years, than natural wetlands. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified herb biomass in wetland restoration sites after 7–22 years. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One replicated study in the USA simply quantified the density of woody vegetation in wetland restoration sites after 7–22 years. Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that ≤15-year-old restored freshwater marshes contained a similar phytoplankton biomass to natural marshes. Individual species abundance (9 studies): Nine studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that created and natural freshwater marshes supported a similar abundance of pickerelweed Pontederia cordata after 1–11 years. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3190https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3190Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:27:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (multiple actions) Seventeen studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using >3 combined actions to restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps. Fourteen studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Canada, the UK and East Africa. There was overlap in the sites used in three studies. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study in Canada reported that the area of emergent vegetation in a marsh was greater after 5–6 years of intervention than in the year before. Community composition (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that restored/created freshwater wetlands contained different overall plant communities to natural or reference wetlands, after 1–8 years. Two site comparison studies in the USA reported similarity in species composition between restored/created and natural wetlands. Similarity ranged from 35% to 79% after 1–5 years. One study in the USA simply quantified the plant community composition of different pools within a marsh, two years after its creation. Overall richness/diversity (16 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison) of freshwater wetlands in the USA and Canada reported that multiple restoration actions increased overall or emergent plant species richness over 1–6 years. Another replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA reported that the effect of restoration on plant species richness varied between years. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that restored/created wetlands had similar plant species richness to natural or reference wetlands, after 1–8 years. One site comparison study in the USA reported that a created wetland contained fewer plant species than nearby natural marshes, after two years. Nine studies (four replicated, one before-and-after) in the USA and the UK simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity approximately 1–10 years after intervention. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (6 studies): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study of freshwater wetlands in the USA reported that multiple restoration actions increased the richness of wetland-characteristic plant species over three subsequent years. Five studies (two replicated) in the USA simply quantified wetland-characteristic plant richness up to 10 years after intervention. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (one also a site comparison) of freshwater wetlands in the USA reported that multiple restoration actions reduced overall vegetation cover over the five subsequent years. Two replicated studies in the USA simply quantified overall vegetation cover for up to six years after intervention. Characteristic plant abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (one also a site comparison) of freshwater wetlands in the USA reported that multiple restoration actions did not increase the cover of wetland-characteristic vegetation over three subsequent years. One of the studies also monitored in the fifth (wetter) year after restoration, and reported greater cover of wetland-characteristic vegetation than before restoration. One replicated study on the same set of wetlands in the USA simply quantified wetland-characteristic vegetation cover for up to three years after intervention. Herb abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restored wet prairies had similar grass and forb cover to remnant prairies after 3–8 years. Another replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created dune slacks had greater cover of annual herbs after three years than mature natural slacks, but similar cover of perennial herbs and floating aquatic herbs. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported greater herb cover 1–5 years after restoration of freshwater wetlands than before. Tree/shrub abundance (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created dune slacks had similar cover of trees and shrubs, after three years, to mature natural slacks. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported lower cover of woody vegetation 1–5 years after restoration of freshwater wetlands than before. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified woody plant cover 1–2 years after intervention. Individual species abundance (10 studies): Ten studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, the replicated, site comparison study in East Africa reported that the biomass of papyrus Cyperus papyrus in created marshes was within the range of natural marshes in the region after 18 months. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3192https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3192Wed, 07 Apr 2021 12:22:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak non-woody plants before planting: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of soaking them 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%2F3359https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3359Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:33:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak 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 soaking them 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%2F3360https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3360Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak trees/shrubs before planting: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of soaking them before planting. The study was in a greenhouse in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE Biomass/plant (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a greenhouse in the USA found that soaking black willow Salix nigra cuttings before planting had no significant effect on the above-ground biomass of surviving seedlings, over the 48 days after planting. OTHER Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a greenhouse in the USA found that the effect, on survival, of soaking black willow cuttings before planting depended on the water regime after planting. However, all cuttings soaked for 15 days before planting died within 42 days of planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3361https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3361Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:33:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak trees/shrubs before planting: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of soaking them 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%2F3362https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3362Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:33:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: freshwater wetlands One study evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of freshwater wetlands – of soaking their seeds before sowing. The study was in a greenhouse in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a greenhouse in the USA found that soaking bulrush seeds in water before sowing typically had no significant effect on their germination rate – especially amongst seeds that had not been manipulated in any other way before soaking. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3363https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3363Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:16:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak seeds of non-woody plants before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on emergent, non-woody plants typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of soaking their seeds before sowing. ‘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%2F3364https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3364Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:16:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak tree/shrub seeds before sowing: freshwater wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of freshwater wetlands – of soaking their seeds before sowing. ‘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%2F3365https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3365Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:17:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soak tree/shrub seeds before sowing: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects – on trees/shrubs typical of brackish/saline wetlands – of soaking their seeds before sowing. ‘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%2F3366https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3366Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:17:12 +0100