The Conservation Evidence Journal shares the global experience of those on the front line of conservation practice about the effectiveness of conservation actions. All papers include monitoring of the effects of the intervention and are written by, or in partnership with, those who did the conservation work. We encourage articles from anywhere around the world on all aspects of species and habitat management such as habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, invasive species control, changing attitudes and education.
The Conservation Evidence Journal publishes peer-reviewed papers throughout the year collected in an annual Volume. We publish Special Issues and collate Collections on specific topics, such as management of particular groups of species or habitats. To search for papers on a specific topic within the journal select Advanced search, enter your keyword(s) and within the Source box type: "conservation evidence". This will take you to a list of actions that contain Conservation Evidence Journal papers. In order to see the list of individual Conservation Evidence Journal papers on the topic, please click on 'You can also search Individual Studies' at the top of this page.
Copyright is retained by the author(s). All papers published in the Conservation Evidence Journal are open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
The Conservation Evidence Journal is a separate publication within the Conservation Evidence project. Conservation Evidence is a free, authoritative information resource designed to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity. You can search for summarised evidence from the scientific literature about the effects of actions for species groups and habitats using our online database.
EDITORIAL Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions
Sutherland W.J., Robinson J.M., Aldridge D.C., Alamenciak T., Armes M., Baranduin N., Bladon A.J., Breed M.F., Dyas N., Elphick C.S., Griffiths R.A., Hughes J., Middleton B., Littlewood N.A., Mitchell R., Morgan W.H., Mosley R., Petrovan S.O., Prendergast K., Ritchie E.G., Raven H., Smith R.K., Watts S.H. & Thornton A. (2022), 19, 1-7
It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions.
Effectiveness of actions intended to achieve a voluntary transition from the use of lead to non-lead shotgun ammunition for hunting in Britain
Green R.E., Taggart M.A., Pain D.J., Clark N.A., Clewley L., Cromie R., Dodd S.G., Elliot B., Green R.M.W., Huntley B., Huntley J., Pap S., Porter R., Robinson J.A., Sheldon R., Smith K.W., Smith L., Spencer J. & Stroud D. (2022), 19, 8-14
In 2020, nine major UK shooting and rural organisations proposed a voluntary transition from the use for hunting of lead shotgun ammunition to non-lead alternatives. The major food retailer Waitrose & Partners has announced its intention to move to not supplying game meat products from animals killed using any kind of lead ammunition and the National Game Dealers Association announced a plan for a similar policy to be implemented in 2022. The SHOT-SWITCH research project, which is intended to monitor the progress of these voluntary initiatives, began in the 2020/2021 shooting season. The project monitors changes in the proportions of wild-shot common pheasants Phasianus colchicus available to consumers in Great Britain that had been killed using lead and non-lead shotgun ammunition, as assessed by using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry to identify the composition of shotgun pellets recovered from carcasses. In 2020/2021, 99.4% of the pheasants sampled had been killed using lead ammunition. We report here further results from this study for the 2021/2022 season. We found that 99.5% of the 215 pheasants from which shotgun pellets were recovered had been killed using lead ammunition. We conclude that the shooting and rural organisations’ joint statement and two years of their considerable efforts in education, awareness-raising and promotion, have not yet had a detectable effect on the ammunition types used by hunters who supply pheasants to the British game meat market.