Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance at nest sites Six studies (two replicated and controlled, two before-and-after and two small studies) from across the world found increased numbers of breeders, higher reproductive success or lower levels of disturbance in waders and terns following the start of access restrictions or the erection of signs near nesting areas. One Canadian study involved the use of multiple interventions. A before-and-after study from the USA found that a colony of black-crowned night herons Nycticorax nycticorax was successfully relocated to an area with no public access. One small study from Europe and one replicated and controlled study from Antarctica found no effect of access restrictions on the reproductive success of eagles or penguins, respectively. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F309https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F309Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:56:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use snakeskin to deter mammalian nest predatorsA randomised, replicated and controlled trial in the USA found that artificial nests were less likely to be predated if they had snake skin wrapped around them than control nests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F406https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F406Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:07:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no evidence for the effects of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance on amphibian populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F795https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F795Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:38:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists One study in the UK found that despite warning signs and human assistance, over 500 toads were killed on some roads. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F841https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F841Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:56:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to clearcutting, shelterwood harvesting resulted in higher, similar or initially higher and then similar salamander abundance. A meta-analysis of 24 studies in North America found that partial harvest, which included shelterwood harvesting with three other types, resulted in smaller reductions in salamander populations than clearcutting Two of three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA found that compared to no harvesting, shelterwood harvesting decreased salamander abundance and changed species composition. One found that shelterwood harvesting did not affect salamander abundance. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to unharvested plots, the proportion of female salamanders carrying eggs, eggs per female or proportion of juveniles were similar or lower in harvested plots that included shelterwood harvested plots, depending on species and time since harvest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F851https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F851Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:42:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs to prevent fire We found no evidence for the effects of using signs to prevent fires on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1172https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1172Thu, 19 May 2016 09:45:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting Six of seven studies (including five replicated, controlled studies) in Australia, Iran, Nepal and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting increased abundance, species richness and diversity of understory plants, as well as the growth and survival rate of young trees. One study found shelterwood harvesting decreased plant species richness and abundance. One study found no effect of shelterwood harvest on tree abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found no effect of shelterwood harvest on red oak acorn production. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1223https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1223Mon, 23 May 2016 09:34:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use soil scarification or ploughing to enhance germination Two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Portugal and the USA found that ploughing increased the cover and diversity of understory plants. Two of three studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled) in Canada and Brazil found that ploughing increased, and one found it decreased the density of young trees. Two replicated, controlled studies in Ethiopia and Sweden found mixed effects of tilling on different tree species. One replicated, before-and-after trial in Finland found that ploughing decreased the cover of plants living on wood surface. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that ploughing did not decrease the spreading distance and density of invasive grass seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1251https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1251Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:09:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use soil disturbance to enhance germination (excluding scarification or ploughing) Two replicated, controlled studies from Canada and Finland found that disturbance of the forest floor decreased understory vegetation cover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1252https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1252Fri, 03 Jun 2016 13:50:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to discourage access to sensitive areas of shrub habitat on shrublands. '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%2F1620https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1620Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:36:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use stabilisation material that can be more easily recovered at decommissioning stage We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using stabilisation material that can be more easily recovered at decommissioning stage on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2058https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2058Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:39:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using sterile individuals in aquaculture systems using non-native species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2158https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2158Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:08:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use species from more than one level of a food web in aquaculture systems We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using species from more than one level of a food web in aquaculture systems on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2195https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2195Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:07:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2325https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2325Thu, 21 May 2020 08:38:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sinking lines instead of floating lines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using sinking lines instead of floating lines on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2799https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2799Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:41:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use stiffened materials or increase tension of fishing gear One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using stiffened materials in fishing nets. The study was in the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (1 study): One controlled study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that using stiffened fishing nets did not reduce the number of Franciscana dolphin entanglements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2801https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2801Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:10:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use slot/strip seeding Two studies examined the effects of using slot/strip seeding on grassland vegetation. Both studies were in the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that strip seeding increased grass species richness. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that strip seeding increased forb species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (1 STUDY) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One review in the UK found that in the majority of cases strip seeding resulted in failed introductions of sown species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3411https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3411Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:29:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Five studies evaluated the effects of using signage to warn motorists of wildlife presence on reptile populations. Three studies were in the USA and one was in each of Dominica and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): One of two before-and-after studies (one replicated and controlled) in the USA found that installing road signs reduced road mortalities of massasaugas in autumn but not summer. The other study found that installing road signs did not reduce road mortalities of painted or Blanding’s turtles. Two before-and-after studies (one replicated) in Canada and the USA found that a combination of installing road signs with either fencing and tunnels or a hybrid nestbox-fencing barrier resulted in fewer road mortalities of massasaugas and diamondback terrapins. One before-and-after study in Dominica found that a combination of using road signs and running an awareness campaign resulted in fewer road mortalities of Antillean iguanas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3524https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3524Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:05:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use sinking lines instead of floating lines We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using sinking lines instead of floating lines. ‘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%2F3606https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3606Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:36:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use stiffened materials or increase tension of fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using stiffened materials or increasing tension of fishing gear. ‘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%2F3607https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3607Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:39:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use smaller machinery to log forests We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using smaller machinery to log forests on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3633https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3633Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:48:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. This study was in Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Turkey found that in an area with signs where sea turtle nests were fenced, nests had higher hatching success than nests from areas with no fencing or signs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3642https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3642Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:26:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using signs and access restrictions to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F3849https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3849Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:30:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was managed by shelterwood harvesting, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the shelterwood harvested forest was similar to a thinned forest and an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by shelterwood harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting, group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered faster after shelterwood harvesting than after group selection harvesting or clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3871https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3871Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:48:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using shielded “full cut-off” lights to remove outwards lighting. This study was in Slovenia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Slovenia found that fewer individual moths and moth species were attracted to lights fitted with blinds to prevent light scattering (along with filters to remove shorter wavelengths) than to conventional lights without blinds or filters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3904https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3904Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:14:48 +0100