-
Pas de résultats
- Navigation
What Works in Conservation 2018
Introduction
1. Amphibian Conservation
Note on the book
1.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
1.2 Threat: Agriculture
1.3 Threat: Energy production and mining
1.4 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
1.5 Threat: Biological resource use
1.6 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
1.7 Threat: Natural system modifications
1.8 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
1.9 Threat: Pollution
1.10 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
1.11 Habitat protection
1.12 Habitat restoration and creation
1.13 Species management
1.14 Education and awareness raising
2. Bat Conservation
2.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
2.2 Threat: Agriculture
2.3 Threat: Energy production – wind turbines
2.4 Threat: Energy production–mining
2.5 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
2.6 Threat: Biological resource use
2.7 Threat: Human disturbance – caving and tourism
2.8 Threat: Natural system modification – natural fire and fire suppression
2.9 Threat: Invasive species
2.10 Threat: Pollution
2.11 Providing artificial roost structures for bats
2.12 Education and awareness raising
3. Bird Conservation
3.1 Habitat protection
3.2 Education and awareness raising
3.3 Threat: Residential and commercial development
3.4 Threat: Agriculture
3.5 Threat: Energy production and mining
3.6 Threat: Transportation and service corridors
3.7 Threat: Biological resource use
3.8 Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
3.9 Threat: Natural system modifications
3.10 Habitat restoration and creation
3.11 Threat: Invasive alien and other problematic species
3.12 Threat: Pollution
3.13 Threat: Climate change, extreme weather and geological events
3.14 General responses to small/declining populations
3.15 Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)
4. Farmland Conservation
4.1 All farming systems
4.2 Arable farming
4.3 Perennial (non-timber) crops
4.4 Livestock farming
4.5 Threat: Residential and commercial development
4.6 Threat: Agri-chemicals
4.7 Threat: Transport and service corridors
4.8 Threat: Hunting and trapping (for pest control, food or sport)
4.9 Threat: Natural system modification
4.10 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
4.11 Threat: Education and awareness
5. Forest Conservation
5.1 Threat: Residential and commercial development
5.2 Threat: Agriculture
5.3 Threat: Transport and service corridors
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use
5.5 Habitat protection
5.6 Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
5.7 Threat: Pollution
5.8 Threat: Climate change and severe weather
5.9 Habitat protection
5.10 Habitat restoration and creation
5.11 Actions to improve survival and growth rate of planted trees
5.12 Education and awareness raising
6. Peatland Conservation
6.1. Threat: Residential and commercial development
6.2. Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture
6.3. Threat: Energy production and mining
6.4. Threat: Transportation and service corridors
6.5. Threat: Biological resource use
6.6. Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
6.7. Threat: Natural system modifications
6.8. Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
6.9. Threat: Pollution
6.10. Threat: Climate change and severe weather
6.11. Habitat creation and restoration
6.12. Actions to complement planting
6.13. Habitat protection
6.14. Education and awareness
7. Primate conservation
7.1. Threat: Residential and commercial development
7.2. Threat: Agriculture
7.3. Threat: Energy production and mining
7.4. Threat: Transportation and service corridors
7.5. Threat: Biological resource use
7.6. Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
7.7. Threat: Natural system modifications
7.8. Threat: Invasive and other problematic species and genes
7.9. Threat: Pollution
7.10. Education and Awareness
7.11. Habitat protection
7.12. Species management
7.13. Livelihood; economic and other incentives
8. Shrubland and heathland conservation
8.1. Threat: Residential and commercial development
8.2. Threat: Agriculture and aquaculture
8.3. Threat: Energy production and mining
8.4. Threat: Biological resource use
8.5. Threat: Transportation and service corridors
8.6. Threat: Human intrusions and disturbance
8.7. Threat: Natural system modifications
8.8. Threat: Invasive and other problematic species
8.9. Threat: Pollution
8.10. Threat: Climate change and severe weather
8.11. Threat: Habitat protection
8.12. Habitat restoration and creation
8.13. Actions to benefit introduced vegetation
8.14 Education and awareness
9. Management of captive animals
9.1. Ex-situ conservation–breeding amphibians
9.2. Promoting health and welfare in captive carnivores (felids, canids and ursids) through feeding practices
9.3. Promoting natural feeding behaviours in primates in captivity
10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
10.1. Threat: Invasive plants
10.2. Threat: Invasive molluscs
10.3 Threat: Invasive crustaceans
10.4. Threat: Invasive fish
10.5. Threat: Invasive reptiles
10.6 Threat: Invasive amphibians
11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
11.1. Reducing agricultural pollution
11.2. All farming systems
11.3. Arable farming
11.4. Perennial farming
11.5. Livestock farming and pasture
12. Enhancing soil fertility
12.1. Reducing agricultural pollution
12.2. All farming systems
12.3. Arable farming
12.4. Livestock and pasture farming
- Table des matières
1. Amphibian conservation
Rebecca K. Smith, Helen Meredith et William J. Sutherland1. Amphibian Conservation
2. Bat conservation
Anna Berthinussen, Olivia C. Richardson, Rebecca K. Smith et al.2. Bat Conservation
3. Bird conservation
David R. Williams, Matthew F. Child, Lynn V. Dicks et al.3. Bird Conservation
4. Farmland conservation
Lynn V. Dicks, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Juliana Dänhardt et al.4. Farmland Conservation
5. Forest conservation
har’El Agra, Simon Schowanek, Yohay Carmel et al.5. Forest Conservation
6. Peatland conservation
Nigel G. Taylor, Patrick Grillas et William J. Sutherland6. Peatland Conservation
Global evidence for the effects of interventions to conserve peatland vegetation
7. Primate conservation
Jessica Junker, Hjalmar S. Kühl, Lisa Orth et al.7. Primate conservation
8. Shrubland and heathland conservation
Philip A. Martin, Ricardo Rocha, Rebecca K. Smith et al.8. Shrubland and heathland conservation
9. Management of captive animals
Coral S. Jonas, Lydia T. Timbrell, Fey Young et al.9. Management of captive animals
10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
David Aldridge, Nancy Ockendon, Ricardo Rocha et al.10. Some aspects of control of freshwater invasive species
11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
Hugh L. Wright, Joscelyne E. Ashpole, Lynn V. Dicks et al.11. Some aspects of enhancing natural pest control
12. Enhancing soil fertility
Georgina Key, Mike Whitfield, Lynn V. Dicks et al.12. Enhancing soil fertility
- imprimer
- Citer
Référence électronique du chapitre
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use In : What Works in Conservation 2018 [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2018 (généré le 29 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/6509>. ISBN : 979-10-365-2454-7.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2018. 5.4 Threat: Biological resource use. In What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/6509Sutherland, William J, et al., (dir..) “5.4 Threat: Biological resource use”. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2018. (pp. 293-298) Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/6509>.Référence électronique du livre
SUTHERLAND, William J. (dir.) ; et al. What Works in Conservation 2018. Nouvelle édition [en ligne]. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2018 (généré le 29 mars 2024). Disponible sur Internet : <https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257>. ISBN : 979-10-365-2454-7.Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L. V., Ockendon, N., Petrovan, S. O., & Smith, R. K. (Eds.) 2018. What Works in Conservation 2018. Open Book Publishers. Tiré de https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257Sutherland, William J, et al., ed. What Works in Conservation 2018. Cambridge : Open Book Publishers, 2018. Web. <https://books.openedition.org/obp/6257>.Compatible avec Zotero - Partager URL :
- Courriel
Collez le code html suivant pour intégrer ce livre sur votre site.
5.4 Threat: Biological resource use
5.4.1 Thinning and wood harvesting
Beneficial
● Log/remove trees within forests: effects on understory plants
1Eight of 12 studies, including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in India, Australia, Bolivia, Canada and the USA found that logging increased the density and cover or species richness and diversity of understory plants. Two studies found mixed and three found no effect. Assessment: beneficial (effectiveness 65%; certainty 65%; harms 10%).
2http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1273
Likely to be beneficial
● Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants
3Twenty five of 38 studies, including 12 replicated, randomized, controlled studies, across the world found that thinning trees increased the density and cover or species richness and diversity of understory plants. Nine studies found mixed and two no effects, and one found a decrease the abundance of herbaceous species. Assessment: Likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 58%; certainty 73%; harms 13%).
4http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1211
● Thin trees within forests: effects on young trees
5Six of 12 studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in Japan and the USA found that thinning increased the density of young trees and a study in Peru found it increased the growth rate of young trees. One study found thinning decreased the density and five found mixed or no effect on young trees. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found no effect on the density of oak acorns. Assessment: Likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 60%; certainty 65%; harms 15%).
6http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1210
● Use shelterwood harvest instead of clearcutting
7Three replicated, controlled studies in Sweden and the USA found that shelterwood harvesting increased density of trees or plant diversity, or decreased grass cover compared with clearcutting. Assessment: Likely to be beneficial (effectiveness 75%; certainty 55%; harms 15%).
8http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1214
Trade-off between benefit and harms
● Thin trees within forests: effects on mature trees
9Eleven of 12 studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in Brazil, Canada, and the USA found that thinning trees decreased the density and cover of mature trees and in one case tree species diversity. Five of six studies, including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study, in Australia, Sweden and the USA found that thinning increased mature tree size, the other found mixed effects. One of three studies, including two replicated controlled studies, in the USA found that thinning reduced the number of trees killed by beetles. Assessment: trade-offs between benefits and harms (effectiveness 47%; certainty 55%; harms 35%).
10http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1209
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
● Log/remove trees within forests: effects on young trees
11One of two replicated controlled studies in Canada and Costa Rica found that logging increased the density of young trees, the other found mixed effects. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 18%; harms 10%).
12http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1272
● Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting
13Three studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 5%; certainty 35%; harms 45%).
14http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1215
● Use summer instead of winter harvesting
15One replicated study in the USA found no effect of logging season on plant species richness and diversity. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 0%; certainty 13%; harms 0%).
16http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1216
Unlikely to be beneficial
● Remove woody debris after timber harvest
17Two studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in France and the USA found no effect of woody debris removal on cover or species diversity of trees. One of six studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in Ethiopia, Spain, Canada and the USA found that woody debris removal increased young tree density. One found that it decreased young tree density and three found mixed or no effect on density or survival. One of six studies, including two replicated, randomized, controlled studies, in the USA and France found that woody debris removal increased understory vegetation cover. Five studies found mixed or no effects on understory vegetation cover or species richness and diversity. Assessment: unlikely to be beneficial (effectiveness 23%; certainty 50%; harms 10%).
18http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1213
Likely to be ineffective or harmful
● Log/remove trees within forests: effect on mature trees
19Three of seven studies, including two replicated, controlled studies, across the world found that logging trees decreased the density and cover of mature trees. Two found it increased tree density and two found no effect. Four of nine studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, across the world found that logging increased mature tree size or diversity. Four found it decreased tree size or species richness and diversity, and two found no effect on mature tree size or diversity. One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that logging increased mature tree mortality rate. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 35%; certainty 50%; harms 30%).
20http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1271
● Log/remove trees within forests: effect on effects on nonvascular plants
21Two of three studies, including one replicated, paired sites study, in Australia, Norway and Sweden found that logging decreased epiphytic plant abundance and fern fertility. One found mixed effects depending on species. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 18%; certainty 40%; harms 50%).
22http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1270
● Thin trees within forests: effects on non-vascular plants
23Three of four studies, including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, in Canada, Finland and Sweden found that thinning decreased epiphytic plant abundance and species richness. Three found mixed effects depending on thinning method and species. Assessment: likely to be ineffective or harmful (effectiveness 20%; certainty 48%; harms 50%).
24http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1212
No evidence found (no assessment)
25We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
- Adopt continuous cover forestry
- Use brash mats during harvesting to avoid soil compaction
5.4.2 Harvest forest products
Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
● Adopt certification
26One replicated, site comparison study in Ethiopia found that deforestation risk was lower in certified than uncertified forests. One controlled, before-and-after trial in Gabon found that, when corrected for logging intensity, although tree damage did not differ, changes in above-ground biomass were smaller in certified than in uncertified forests. Assessment: unknown effectiveness (effectiveness 50%; certainty 20%; harms 3%).
27http://www.conservationevidence.com/actions/1150
No evidence found (no assessment)
28We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
29• Sustainable management of non-timber products
5.4.3 Firewood
No evidence found (no assessment)
30We have captured no evidence for the following interventions:
- Provide fuel efficient stoves
- Provide paraffin stoves.