Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting disturbance Three studies from the USA and Europe found that bird densities were higher in refuges where hunting was prohibited, compared to areas with hunting. In addition, two studies found that more birds used hunting-free areas during the open season and on hunting days. No studies investigated the population-level impacts of these refuges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F278https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F278Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:34:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use voluntary agreements with local people to reduce disturbanceA before-and-after trial in the USA found significantly lower disturbance rates following the establishment of a voluntary waterfowl avoidance area (VWAA), despite an overall increase in boat traffic. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F313https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F313Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:06:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use variable retention management during forestry operationsA replicated, controlled study from the USA found that nine bird species occurred at higher densities in stands under variable retention management, compared to control stands. Five were found at lower densities. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F332https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F332Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:02:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by mining or sewage Two studies found lower bird mortality or fewer birds rescued from toxic ponds when deterrent systems were used. Four of five studies found that fewer birds landed on pools with deterrents than controls, although one of these found that the effect was weaker for grebes compared to wildfowl and absent for waders. One study that used regular broadcasts of different sounds found that it had no impact on bird behaviour. Two studies investigated different systems and found that radar-operated systems were more effective than systems that worked at random intervals. One of these studies also found that loud noises were more effective than moving peregrine falcons Falco peregrinus models. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F452https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F452Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:32:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use volunteers to collect downed birds and rehabilitate them We found no evidence that report on the effectiveness of using volunteers to collect and rehabilitate downed birds. '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%2F472https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F472Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vocalisations to attract birds to safe areas Six studies from North America, the Galapagos and the Azores found that seabirds were more likely to nest in areas where vocalisations were played, or were successfully attracted to nest in new areas, following the playing of vocalisations. Four of these studies used several interventions at once. One study found that some calls were more effective than others. Two studies from the USA and the Galapagos found that birds did not colonise all new areas where vocalisations were played. It is possible that the result from the Galapagos was due to only having a single year’s data. One controlled study from Hawaii found that albatross were more likely to land in areas where vocalisations were played than in areas without vocalisation playback. A small controlled study from New Zealand found that terns were not more likely to land in areas where vocalisations were played. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F585https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F585Sat, 06 Oct 2012 21:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vaccinations Two controlled studies from Iceland and Norway found higher survival rates in vaccinated salmon compared to unvaccinated control groups. This was post exposure to the disease-causing bacteria, Aeromonas salmonicida spp.achromogenes and Yersinia ruckeri, respectively. Two controlled studies in Australia and Canadia reported higher survival in salmon infected with marine flexibacteriosis and bacterial kidney disease, post vaccination. Two controlled studies in Norway reported similar results for salmon vaccinated against infectious salmon anaemia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F733https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F733Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:33:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use zooplankton to remove zoospores We found no evidence for the effects of using zooplankton to remove chytrid zoospores 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%2F800https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F800Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:44:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating bats against the white-nose syndrome pathogen 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%2F1011https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1011Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:46:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wire fences within grazing areas to exclude livestock from specific forest sections Four of eight studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Israel, New Zealand, Spain, West Africa and the USA found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased biomass , species richness, density and cover of understory plants. The other four studies found mixed effects or no effect of livestock exclusion on understory plants. Three of four studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Mexico, Kenya, Israel and Panama found that excluding livestock using wire fences increased the size and density of regenerating trees and the number of regenerating trees. One study found livestock exclusion decreased tree density but not tree size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1205https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1205Thu, 19 May 2016 13:44:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wire fencing to exclude large native herbivores Five of ten studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Bhutan, Canada, France, Portugal and the USA found that using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores increased the cover and size of understory plants. Six studies found no effect of wire fencing on the cover, seed density, species richness or diversity of understory plants. Two of the above studies and one paired-sites study in Ireland examined the effect of using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores on young trees. One found it increased the biomass, one found it decreased the density of young trees and one found mixed effects depending on the species. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that using wire fencing to exclude large herbivores increased tree density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1230https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1230Mon, 23 May 2016 10:55:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weed mats to protect planted trees One replicated, controlled study in Hong Kong found no effect of using weed mats on thick-leaved oak seedling height. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1267https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1267Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:53:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance to the soil Two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Portugal and France found that vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance of the soil increased the cover and diversity of understory plants. One of the studies found it also decreased understory shrub cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in France found that vegetation removal together with mechanical disturbance of the soil increased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1274https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1274Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:55:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities 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%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use water-based muds instead of oil-based muds (drilling fluids) in the drilling process We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using water-based muds instead of oil-based muds (drilling fluids) in the drilling process 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%2F2067https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2067Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:50:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F2339https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2339Thu, 21 May 2020 15:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents, such as scarecrows, to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in Kenya recorded more livestock predation at bomas with scarecrows than those without scarecrows whereas a replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that a combination of visual and sound deterrents reduced livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2427https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2427Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:13:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use watchmen to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using watchmen to deter crop damage 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 effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2451https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2451Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:57:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2612https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2612Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using wildlife decoys to reduce vehicle collisions with 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%2F2620https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2620Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:32:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weakened fishing gear We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using weakened fishing gear 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%2F2797https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2797Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:39:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use volunteers to deter tourists from harassing marine and freshwater mammals at wildlife-viewing sites One study evaluated the effects of using volunteers to deter tourists from harassing marine and freshwater mammals at wildlife-viewing sites. The study was at the Ohau Stream waterfall (New Zealand). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One randomized, controlled study at the Ohau Stream waterfall found that the presence of an official-looking volunteer resulted in fewer tourists harassing New Zealand fur seals at a waterfall. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2844https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2844Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:27:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Vaccinate against disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects of vaccinating against disease 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%2F2858https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F2858Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:15:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual or acoustic deterrents to discourage reptiles from approaching vessels We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using visual or acoustic deterrents to discourage reptiles from approaching vessels. ‘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%2F3536https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3536Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:06:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual deterrents on fishing gear Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents on fishing gear on reptile populations. One study was off the coast of Mexico and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that shark-shaped and spherical deterrents had mixed effects on a range of captive loggerhead turtle behaviours. OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch: (1 study): One replicated, controlled study off the coast of Mexico found that gillnets with floating shark shapes attached to them caught fewer green turtles than unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3553https%3A%2F%2Fconservationevidencejournal.com%2Factions%2F3553Wed, 08 Dec 2021 12:30:30 +0000