Links evidence

Below are set out a list of summaries of the evidence for links between steps in the Generic Reserve Conservation Programme Logic. These were developed at a meeting of experts in Melbourne in July 2008. 

Link: Rabbits controlled in key conservation areas influences Overall increase in ground cover. 

This sets out the evidence for one link in the Generic Reserve Conservation Programme Logic. See the summary for information on the expert group which prepared this.


Strength of evidence supporting existence of influence: There is a lot of good evidence for the link between rabbits controlled in key conservation areas influencing overall increase in ground cover. This is set out in the Systematic Evidence Review No. 14 From the Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation [This is an example only and not on this topic]


Evidence type

Outcomes studies: There are numerous experimental outcome evaluations which have been carried out on this link including Smith and Western (2007); Brown and Jones (2006). 

Non-outcomes studies:  There are a number of studies which describe different practical ways that rabbits can be eliminated without establishing an outcome effect. These include Long and Tuffy (2003). 

Suggestions for future research on this link:  It is suggested that a specific study be conduced on poisoning with Rabbit Kill versus trapping in very dry bush conditions as this is one area where the evidence is not clear. 

Other comments: A new program logic should be drawn up outlining different ways of eliminating rabbits and describing the evidence for each method.



Link: Effective weed control influences Increase in palatable species (near watering points)

This sets out the evidence* for one link in the Generic Reserve Conservation Programme Logic. See the summary for information on the expert group which prepared this.

Strength of evidence supporting existence of influence: There is currently little evidence that the link between effective weed control and maintenance and increase in palatable species. 

Evidence type
Outcomes studies: No strong outcomes evaluation studies could be identified. There is a study by Smith and Smith (2003) but it has methodological flaws.  
Non-outcomes studies:  There are number of non-outcome studies which look at some of the anecdotal views regarding this link. 
Suggestions for future research on this link:  One well constructed outcome evaluation on this link is a priority. This will require a significant amount of research funding. 
Other comments: It may be that a feasibility study of the proposed outcome evaluation study may find that it is not possible due to practical problems and that the issue of the outcomes evaluation evidence supporting this link may not be able to be resolved in at least the medium term. 



THIS IS A MOCK-UP ONLY