Conservation Evidence Team

Introduction

The following have been actively involved in the work of Conservation Evidence. This does not include the group involved with the online journal Conservation Evidence.

Contact us at: info@conservationevidence.com

Team Photo

Core team

  • William Sutherland
    William Sutherland

    Miriam Rothschild Professor of Conservation Biology, University of Cambridge, established the idea and site and has been heavily involved since.

  • Rebecca Smith
    Dr Rebecca Smith

    Conservation Evidence Manager, University of Cambridge, has worked both as an ecologist and an academic, providing useful experience. She initially worked with us on systematic reviews but since 2011 has worked on the Farmland Synopsis, produced the Amphibian Synopsis and has been the key person on many aspects of the work of Conservation Evidence, including What Works in Conservation.

  • Dr Rebecca Smith
    Dr Lynn Dicks

    University of East Anglia. With a useful background in both ecology and journalism, Lynn has played a key role in establishing many of the main methods such as the synopses and What Works in Conservation. She was the lead author of the Bee Synopsis and the Farmland Synopsis. She is now an independent researcher who amongst other work gets Conservation Evidence used in policy making.

What studies have we searched for?

  • A conservation action must have been carried out. Browse our evidence for examples of conservation actions.
  • The effects of the action on biodiversity or ecosystem services must have been monitored quantitatively. There are a variety of relevant metrics for Conservation Evidence but some common ones include abundance, diversity, population trends, reproductive success, survival rate, percentage cover and establishment of a successful breeding population.
  • A conservation action must have been carried out. Browse our evidence for examples of conservation actions.
  1. A conservation action must have been carried out. Browse our evidence for examples of conservation actions.
  2. The effects of the action on biodiversity or ecosystem services must have been monitored quantitatively. There are a variety of relevant metrics for Conservation Evidence but some common ones include abundance, diversity, population trends, reproductive success, survival rate, percentage cover and establishment of a successful breeding population.
  3. A conservation action must have been carried out. Browse our evidence for examples of conservation actions.

A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity. Plots with all downed and standing woody debris removed did not differ significantly from controls in terms of abundance (1–2 vs 2), species richness (7 vs 7) or diversity (17–18 vs 19). The southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala had greater capture rates with removal rather than addition of woody debris (0.11 vs 0.02/night). Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and a second set in 2002–2005. Control plots had no manipulation of woody debris. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005.

plantA randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity. Plots with all downed and standing woody debris removed did not differ significantly from controls in terms of abundance (1–2 vs 2), species richness (7 vs 7) or diversity (17–18 vs 19). The southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala had greater capture rates with removal rather than addition of woody debris (0.11 vs 0.02/night). Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and a second set in 2002–2005. Control plots had no manipulation of woody debris. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity.

PlantA randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity. Plots with all downed and standing woody debris removed did not differ significantly from controls in terms of abundance (1–2 vs 2), species richness (7 vs 7) or diversity (17–18 vs 19). The southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala had greater capture rates with removal rather than addition of woody debris (0.11 vs 0.02/night). Treatments were randomly assigned to 9 ha plots within three forest blocks. The first set of treatments was undertaken in 1996–2001 and a second set in 2002–2005. Control plots had no manipulation of woody debris. Five drift-fence arrays with pitfall traps/plot were used for sampling in 1998–2005. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in 1998–2005 of pine stands in South Carolina, USA (Owens et al. 2008) found that the removal of coarse woody debris did not effect amphibian abundance, species richness or diversity.

Journal Researched Language Conservation literature researcher

Mitteilungen des Badischen Landesvereins für Naturkunde und Naturschutz Communications of the Baden Association for Natural History and Nature Conservation

1953-2015 German Dominik Schwab (1983-1992; 2006-2016)

Boletín de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural Bulletin of the Royal Spanish Society of Natural History

2003-2017 Spanish Nayelli Rivera (2003-2017)

The basics

The approach to medical practice 30 years ago was similar to the current approach to nature conservation, so a number of people (Pullin & Knight 2001, Sutherland 20001, Sutherland et al. 2004) suggested that a similar revolution would benefit conservation management. The vision is that the assessment and dissemination of the effectiveness of conservation actions will be a routine part of conservation practice.

1 Sutherland W.J. (2000) The Conservation Handbook: research, management and policy (pp. 111-113). Blackwell, Oxford.

The approach to medical practice 30 years ago was similar to the current approach to nature conservation, so a number of people (Pullin & Knight 2001, Sutherland 20001, Sutherland et al. 2004) suggested that a similar revolution would benefit conservation management. The vision is that the assessment and dissemination of the effectiveness of conservation actions will be a routine part of conservation practice.

1 Sutherland W.J. (2000) The Conservation Handbook: research, management and policy (pp. 111-113). Blackwell, Oxford.

How are actions categorized by overall effectiveness?

Overall effectiveness categories Effectiveness scores Certainty scores Harm scores
Beneficial >60% >60% <20%
Likely to be beneficial
Criteria 1
OR
Criteria 2
>60% 40% to 60% <20%
40% to 60% ≥40% <20%
Trade-offs between benefits & harms ≥40% ≥40% ≥20%
Unknown effectiveness Any score <40% Any score
Unlikely to be beneficial <40% >60% Any score
Likely to be harmful
Criteria 1
OR
Criteria 2
<40% >60% Any score
<40% ≥40% ≥20%
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust