Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove residential or commercial developmentWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing residential or commercial development 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%2F2946https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2946Mon, 01 Mar 2021 16:14:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regulate farming to allow gradual regeneration of marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of regulating farming to allow gradual habitat regeneration.   ‘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%2F2951https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2951Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:40:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of vegetation harvest: freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the intensity of harvest in freshwater marshes (or harvesting at different intensities).   ‘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%2F3001https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3001Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:26:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of vegetation harvest: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the intensity of harvest in brackish/salt marshes (or harvesting at different intensities).   ‘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%2F3002https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3002Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:26:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of vegetation harvest: freshwater swamps One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the intensity of harvest in freshwater swamps (or harvesting at different intensities). The study was in China. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a freshwater swamp in China reported that overall herb biomass was statistically similar in plots logged at different intensities five years previously. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): The same study reported that overall tree biomass was greatest in plots logged at the lowest intensity five years previously. In contrast, overall shrub biomass was greatest in plots logged at medium intensity. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study reported that the density of the two most common tree species typically declined with increasing logging intensity. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in a freshwater swamp in China reported that the diameter of the two most common tree species typically declined with increasing logging intensity. Basal area (1 study): The same study reported that the basal area of the two most common tree species typically declined with increasing logging intensity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3003https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3003Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:27:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce overharvested animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of reintroducing overharvested animals.   ‘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%2F3018https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3018Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:26:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter: freshwater marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing plant litter from freshwater marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that plots cleared of plant litter contained a plant community characteristic of wetter conditions than uncleared plots after one growing season – but not after two. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): The same study found that plots cleared of plant litter contained a similar number of wetland plant species to uncleared plots, after 1–2 growing seasons. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                          Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in rewetted marshes in the USA found that plots cleared of plant litter had greater cover of wetland plants than uncleared plots after one growing season – but not after two. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3062https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3062Fri, 02 Apr 2021 12:40:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing plant litter from brackish/salt 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%2F3063https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3063Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:01:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing plant litter from 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%2F3064https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3064Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:01:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove plant litter: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing plant litter from 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%2F3065https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3065Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:01:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from 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%2F3161https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3161Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:48:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from brackish/salt marshes. Both studies were in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that overall vegetation cover in patches where debris had been removed remained lower than in undisturbed marsh for one growing season, but had recovered to match undisturbed marsh after two growing seasons. Individual species abundance (2 studies): Two studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, the two replicated, site comparison studies in salt marshes in the USA found that the abundance of dominant herb species in impacted vegetation patches was typically lower than in undisturbed marsh one growing season after removing debris, but was sometimes similar to undisturbed marsh. The results depended on the species, metric and type of debris removed. One of the studies also monitored until the second growing season after removing debris; at this point, the cover of both dominant herb species had recovered to match undisturbed marsh. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that the maximum height of smooth cordgrass recovered, to match undisturbed marsh, within 45 weeks of removing debris. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3162https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3162Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from 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%2F3163https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3163Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove debris from brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing debris from 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%2F3164https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3164Tue, 06 Apr 2021 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove pollutants from waste gases before they enter the environmentWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation in marshes or swamps, of removing pollutants from waste gases before releasing them into the environment.   ‘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%2F3179https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3179Tue, 06 Apr 2021 16:11:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater marshes Six studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create freshwater marshes. Four studies were in the USA. One study was in the Netherlands. One study was in Japan. VEGETATION COMMUNITY                              Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by removing excess soil/sediment (along with other interventions) typically contained a different overall plant community, after 1–12 years, to both degraded and natural marshes nearby. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply reported changes in the overall plant community composition over four years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness was greater in restored slacks (topsoil stripped five years previously, along with other interventions) than in mature unmanaged slacks. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that freshwater marshes being restored by removing topsoil (along with other interventions) contained fewer wetland plant species, after 1–12 years, than nearby natural marshes. Two studies (including one site comparison) in freshwater marshes in the USA and Japan reported that the effect of removing topsoil on overall plant species richness depended on the amount removed. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of a floodplain marsh in Japan found that where stripped plots were colonized by plants within two growing seasons, they contained more wetland-characteristic species than an adjacent unstripped area. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply reported the number of characteristic plant species present over five years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Three studies (two replicated) in the Netherlands, the USA and Japan simply quantified the overall abundance of vegetation that colonized – within five years – freshwater wetlands stripped of topsoil (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated) in freshwater marshes in the USA and Japan simply quantified the abundance of wetland-characteristic plant species that colonized – within five years – areas stripped of topsoil. Individual species abundance (5 studies): Five 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 pothole wetlands restored by removing excess sediment (sometimes along with planting herbs) had lower hybrid cattail Typha x glauca cover than unrestored wetlands after 2–7 years, and similar hybrid cattail cover to nearby natural wetlands. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified the cover of individual species present over five years after stripping topsoil (along with other interventions). Only two species had >1% cover in any slack. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One study in a freshwater marsh in the USA reported that the effect of removing topsoil on the abundance of tall vegetation depended on the amount removed. Visual obstruction (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study of pothole wetlands in the USA found that the effect of removing excess sediment (sometimes along with planting herbs) on horizontal vegetation cover, 2–7 years later, depended on the elevation/vegetation zone. Height (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that sedge tussocks were shorter in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that sedge tussocks had a smaller perimeter in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Basal area (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA reported that the basal area of sedge tussocks was smaller in a wet meadow restored by removing excess sediment (along with other interventions, including planting sedges) than in nearby natural meadows, after 11–14 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3221https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3221Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:07:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment to restore or create brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the Netherlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY                              Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study in the Netherlands reported that 23 plant species colonized over two years after stripping topsoil from coastal farmland. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study in the Netherlands reported the frequency of plant species that colonized over two years after stripping topsoil from coastal farmland. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3222https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3222Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment 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%2F3223https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3223Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment 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%2F3224https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3224Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:08:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reprofile/relandscape (before planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reprofiling/relandscaping before planting 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%2F3285https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3285Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:30:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove surface soil/sediment (before planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of removing surface soil/sediment before planting 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%2F3290https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3290Sat, 10 Apr 2021 20:04:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Three studies evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. All three studies were in the USA. Two studies used the same experimental wet basins but planted different species. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in wet meadows in the USA found removing an invasive species with herbicide before sowing mixed grass and forb seeds increased the total biomass of sown species after 1–2 growing seasons, but that burning to remove the invasive species had no significant effect on sown species biomass. Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in wet basins in the USA found that the effect of weeding to remove competitors on lake sedge Carex lacustris biomass and density, in the three years after planting, depended on the year and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the height of planted sedges. One of the studies found that weeding had no significant effect on the height of planted tussock sedge Carex stricta in three of three years. The other study found that weeding reduced the average height of lake sedge Carex lacustris in the first year after planting, but had no significant effect in the following two years. OTHER Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the survival of planted sedges Carex spp. Both studies found that weeding had no significant effect on sedge survival in at least two of three years. One of the studies found that weeding affected tussock sedge Carex stricta survival in the second year after planting, but that the direction of the effect depended on plot elevation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3332https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3332Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:05:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands One study evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing plants. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuarine salt marsh in the USA found that thinning cover of the dominant plant before sowing dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii seeds had no significant effect on saltwort seedling density, over the following two months. Survival (1 study): The same study found that thinning the dominant plant increased the survival rate of dwarf saltwort Salicornia bigelovii transplants over the first six months after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3333https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3333Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:08:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted trees/shrubs: freshwater wetlands Five studies evaluated the effects, on trees/shrubs planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. Four studies were in the USA. Two of these took place in the same swamp, but with different experimental set-ups. One study was in Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE Height (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two also randomized, two also paired) in a wet meadow in Australia and a degraded swamp in the USA found that clearing vegetation before planting tree/shrub seedlings typically had no clear or significant effect on their height, after 1–4 growing seasons. However, one of the studies in the USA found that planted baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings were taller, after three growing seasons, when planted amongst cut woody vegetation than below an uncleared canopy. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet meadow in Australia found that clearing vegetation, before planting tree/shrub seedlings, typically had no significant effect on the diameter of these seedlings nine months later. OTHER Germination/emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in a wet meadow in Australia found that there were more seedlings in plots that had been cleared of vegetation before sowing tree/shrub seeds, than in plots that had not been cleared before sowing. Seedlings were counted two months after sowing. Survival (4 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two also randomized, two also paired) in a wet meadow in Australia and a degraded swamp in the USA found that clearing vegetation before planting tree/shrub seedlings typically had no clear or significant effect on their survival, after 1–4 growing seasons. However, one of the studies in the USA found that planted baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings had a lower survival rate, after three growing seasons, when planted amongst cut woody vegetation than below an uncleared canopy. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in degraded swamps in the USA found that removing reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea before planting tree/shrub seedlings never significantly reduced their survival rate over 1–2 growing seasons, and often increased it. Growth (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that baldcypress Taxodium distichum seedlings planted into a marsh grew more in diameter, but less in height, when planted into plots cleared of vines than when planted into uncleared plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3334https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3334Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:09:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation that could compete with planted trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlandsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on trees/shrubs planted in brackish/saline wetlands, of removing competing 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%2F3335https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3335Sun, 11 Apr 2021 14:09:29 +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