Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire suppression/control Two out of three before-and-after studies, from Australia and the UK, found that five species of bird (including noisy scrub-bird, the target species of one study) increased following fire suppression measures. A before-and-after study in the USA found that open habitat species declined in a pine forest site after fire exclusion, whilst mesic woodland species appeared. A before-and-after study from the UK found that five bird species declined following fire suppression.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F324https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F324Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:35:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flashing lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA randomised, replicated and controlled trial from the USA found that fewer dead birds were found beneath control towers that used only flashing lights, as opposed to those using both flashing and continuous lights.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F470https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F470Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:31:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use gloves to handle amphibians We found no evidence for the effects of using gloves on the spread of disease between amphibian populations or individuals. A review for Canada and the USA found that there were no adverse effects of handling 22 amphibian species using disposable gloves. However, three replicated studies (including one controlled study) in Australia and Austria found that deaths of tadpoles were caused by latex gloves for all four species tested, by vinyl gloves for three of five species and by nitrile gloves for the one species tested.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F769https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F769Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing instead of cutting for pasture or grassland managementNatural enemies: Two studies (one before-and-after and one replicated trial) from Australia and the UK found grazing instead of cutting had mixed effects on natural enemies, with some species and groups affected on some dates but not others. One replicated study from New Zealand found no effect. Pests and diseases: One of five studies (including three replicated trials) from Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the USA found more pests, and two studies found effects varied between pest groups and sampling dates. Two studies found no effect on pests. One study found no effect on disease when grazing was used in addition to cutting. Pasture damage and plant survival: One randomised study found more ryegrass shoots were attacked by pests. One study found lower survival of alfalfa plants but another found no effect. Yield: One of four randomised, replicated studies (one also controlled) found lower yields and two found no effect. One study found lower ryegrass and higher clover yields, but no difference between clover varieties. Another randomised study found more ryegrass shoots. Crops studied were alfalfa, cock’s-foot, perennial ryegrass, other grasses and white clover.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F885https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F885Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:54:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use genetically modified alternatives Three controlled, replicated (two randomised) studies in Norway found no difference in growth rate of Atlantic salmon that were fed diets containing either GM or non-GM soybeans. One randomised, replicated, controlled study in Norway found no differences in fish fed diets containing either GM or non- GM soybeans on the histology of the fish.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F928https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F928Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:50:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer Six of eight studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled) in the USA, Finland, Brazil, Australia and Switzerland found that applying fertilizer increased total plant cover, understory plant biomass , size of young trees, relative  biomass of grasses (out of total biomass of all plants) and cover of plant species that were seeded artificially. Five of the studies found no effect of applying fertilizer on plant biomass, plant cover, seedling abundance, tree growth and tree seedling diversity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1248https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1248Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:30:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fertilizer after tree planting Two replicated, controlled studies in Canada and Portugal found that applying fertilizer after planting increased the size of the planted trees. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that soil enhancers including fertilizer had a mixed effect on seedling survival and height. Three studies (including two randomized, replicated, controlled study) in France and Australia found no effect of applying fertilizer on the size and survival rate or health of planted trees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1260https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1260Mon, 06 Jun 2016 10:48:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use GPS and/or VHF tracking devices on individuals of problem troops to provide farmers with early warning of crop raiding We found no evidence for the effects of tracking devices on crop-raiding primates to provide farmers with early warning of crop raiding on primate 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%2F1443https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1443Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:17:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing or alter livestock to control grass One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that grazing to reduce grass cover had mixed effects on cover of common heather and cross-leaved heath. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that cover of wavy-hair grass increased and one before-and-after study in Spain found a reduction in grass height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1646https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1646Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:34:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to control problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of using grazing to control problematic plants. N.B. Grazing in different contexts is considered in separate actions here, here and here. ‘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%2F1773https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1773Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:43:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using glazing treatments to prevent light spill from inside lit buildings on bat 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%2F2022https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2022Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:07:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Italy and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three studies (including two before-and-after studies and a controlled study), in Italy, Canada and the USA, found that flags hanging from fence lines (fladry) deterred crossings by wolves but not by coyotes. A further replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric fences with fladry were not crossed by wolves. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fladry did not reduce total deer carcass consumption by a range of carnivores. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2421https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2421Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:54:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing/netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fencing or netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. '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 effectsCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2454https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2454Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:11:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fencing to protect water sources for use by wild mammals. ‘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%2F2493https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2493Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:02:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude grazers or other problematic species. One study was in each of the USA, Australia and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that after fencing to exclude introduced herbivores, native mammal species richness increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two controlled studies (including one replicated, paired sites study) in Spain and Australia found that using fences to exclude large or introduced herbivores increased the abundance of Algerian mice and native mammals. A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that in areas fenced to exclude livestock grazing and off-road vehicles, abundance of black-tailed hares was lower compared to in unfenced areas. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2495https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2495Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:18:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species. Four studies were in Australia, four were in the USA and two were in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that fencing which excluded feral cats, foxes and rabbits increased small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, controlled studies), in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that abundances of European rabbits and small mammals were higher within areas fenced to exclude predators or other problematic species, compared to in unfenced areas. The third study found that hispid cotton rat abundance was not higher with predator fencing. A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that translocated European rabbit abundance was higher in fenced areas that excluded both terrestrial carnivores and raptors than in areas only accessible to raptors. Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that predator exclosures increased the number of white-tailed deer fawns relative to the number of adult females. Survival (7 studies): Four of six studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that fencing to exclude predators did not increase survival of translocated European rabbits, hispid cotton rats, southern flying squirrels or western barred bandicoots. The other two studies found that persistence of populations of eastern barred bandicoots and long-haired rats was greater inside than outside fences. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that electric fencing reduced coyote incursions into sites frequented by black-footed ferrets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2497https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2497Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:36:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Zimbabwe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated study in Zimbabwe found that a combination of large fires and people with drums and dogs repelled African elephants from crops faster than did a combination of people with dogs and slingshots, drums and burning sticks. A study in India found that fire reduced the chance of Asian elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2499https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2499Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:39:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flags to signal the legal nationality of a fishing vessel We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a flag to identify the legal nationality of a fishing vessel on marine fish 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%2F2768https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2768Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:10:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use grazing to control problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of using grazing to control problematic plants in 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%2F3115https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3115Sun, 04 Apr 2021 15:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flotation devices to support planted vegetationWe found no studies that evaluated the effects of using flotation devices to support emergent vegetation planted in wetlands.   ‘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%2F3340https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3340Sun, 11 Apr 2021 16:45:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to prevent reptiles from accessing facilities We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using fencing to prevent reptiles from accessing facilities. ‘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%2F3499https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3499Mon, 06 Dec 2021 16:08:27 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fire suppression/control We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fire suppression or control on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3880https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3880Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:55:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using fencing to reduce pesticide and nutrient run-off into margins, waterways and ponds. ‘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%2F3893https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3893Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:04:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use genetically modified crops which produce pesticide to replace conventional pesticide application          One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using genetically modified crops which produce pesticide to replace conventional pesticide application. This study was in a laboratory. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in a laboratory found that pollen from genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Btk) toxin against European corn borer did not reduce the survival of eastern tiger swallowtail or spicebush swallowtail caterpillars more than pollen from non-genetically modified maize. Condition (1 study): One controlled study in a laboratory found that pollen from genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki (Btk) toxin against European corn borer did not reduce the growth of eastern tiger swallowtail or spicebush swallowtail caterpillars more than pollen from non-genetically modified maize. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3895https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3895Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:21:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using glazing treatments to reduce light spill from inside lit buildings. ‘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%2F3905https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3905Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:15:56 +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