Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once) A total of 32 individual studies from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects on farmland wildlife of reducing management intensity on permanent grasslands. Twenty-two studies found benefits to some or all wildlife groups studied. Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons and three reviews) found reduced management intensity on permanent grassland benefited plants. Sixteen studies (including eight site comparisons of which four paired and three reviews) found benefits to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including two replicated site comparisons, of which one paired, and a review) found positive effects on some or all birds. Twenty-one studies from six European countries found no clear effects of reducing management intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Seven studies (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) found no clear effect on plants. Ten studies (including four site comparisons and one paired site comparison) found mixed or no effects on some or all invertebrates. Two studies (one review, one site comparison) found invertebrate communities on less intensively managed grasslands were distinct from those on intensively managed grasslands. Four studies (including three site comparisons, of which one paired and two replicated) found no clear effects on bird numbers or species richness. Five studies from four European countries found negative effects of reducing management intensity on plants, invertebrates or birds. Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) found some plant species were lost under extensive management. Two studies (one paired site comparison) found more invertebrates in grasslands with intensive management. One paired site comparison found fewer wading birds on grasslands with reduced management intensity than on conventionally managed grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:11:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We have captured no evidence for the effects of reducing field size (or maintaining small fields) on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F72https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F72Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:03:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or maintain dry stone walls We have captured no evidence for the effects of restoring or maintaining dry stone walls on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F74https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F74Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:05:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntings We have found no evidence for the effects of adding 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F87https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F87Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:27:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) We have captured no evidence for the effects of using new crop types to benefit wildlife (such as perennial cereal crops) on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F89https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F89Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:31:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking A replicated, controlled study in the UK found more spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions on sheep-grazed grassland than on mixed livestock-grazed grassland when suction sampling, but not when pitfall-trapping.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F93Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots We have captured no evidence for the effects of using alerts to reduce grey partridge by-catch during shoots on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F102https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F102Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove coarse fish We have captured no evidence for the effects of removing coarse fish on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F110https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F110Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:08:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional water meadows Of three studies from Sweden and the UK (two before-and-after trials) looking at bird numbers or densities following water meadow restoration, one study found increases, one study found increases and decreases and one found northern lapwing populations did not increase despite an increase in the area of managed water meadows. Seventeen studies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and the UK (seven replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized and two reviews) found one or more management techniques that were successful in restoring wet meadow plant communities. The techniques were topsoil removal, introduction of target plant species, raising water levels, grazing, mowing or a combination of removing topsoil and introducing target plant species, plus livestock exclusion. Three studies (one replicated controlled study and two reviews) from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the UK found restoration of wet meadow plant communities had reduced or limited success. Thirteen studies (five replicated and controlled of which two randomized) from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK monitored the effects of methods to restore or create wet meadow plant communities over a relatively short time period after restoration, and found some positive effects within five years. Three replicated studies (one controlled, one a site comparison) from the Netherlands and Germany found restoration was not complete five, nine or 20 years later. A replicated controlled site comparison from Sweden found plant species richness increased with time since restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F119https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F119Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:58:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove flood defence banks to allow inundation One controlled before-and-after study from the UK found more bird territories and species on a stretch of river modified to allow inundation of river edges compared to a channelized section of river. One study from Belgium found that a combination of mowing and flooding resulted in increased plant species richness in meadow plots, but infrequently flooded, mown plots had more plant species than frequently flooded, non-mown plots.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F122Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:17:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage A total of 42 individual studies (including seven replicated, controlled and randomized studies and six reviews) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK investigated the effects of reducing tillage on farmland wildlife. Thirty-four studies (of which 21 were replicated and controlled and seven also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found some positive effects on earthworms, some invertebrates (other than earthworms), weeds or farmland birds, of reducing tillage compared to conventional management. Positive effects included increased biomass, species richness or abundance of earthworms, greater abundance of some invertebrates other than earthworms, increased numbers of some weeds and/or weed species, higher Eurasian skylark nest density, earlier laying date and shorter foraging distances on reduced tillage fields, and greater abundance of some birds - including Eurasian skylark, seed-eating songbirds and gamebirds in late winter on non-inversion or conservation tillage. A review found tillage had negative effects on invertebrate numbers and no-till systems had more invertebrate bird food resources. Twenty-six studies (of which 13 replicated and controlled and three also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found reducing tillage had either negative, no effect or no consistent effects on abundance, biomass, or species richness of some invertebrates (other than earthworms), earthworm abundance, biomass, or species richness, number of different plant species found as seeds, number of some weed species, mammal abundance, some bird species, and one study found bird preferences for conservation tillage fields decreased over time. Two studies found that crop type affected the number of weeds under different tillage regimes. One small replicated trial in the UK compared bird numbers under two different forms of reduced tillage, and found more birds from species that make up the ‘Farmland Bird Index’ on broadcast than non-inversion tillage fields. Two studies looked at the long-term effects of reduced tillage on earthworms (after ten years). One study found higher earthworm biomass under reduced tillage, the other study found earthworm abundance was the same between conventional and reduced tillage plots. Three of the studies mentioned above did not distinguish between the effects of reducing tillage and reduced pesticide and/or fertilizer inputs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:00:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Take field corners out of management A replicated site comparison study in the UK found that taking field corners out of management was positively correlated with grey partridge overwinter survival. However it had no effect on grey partridge brood size, the ratio of young to old birds or year-on-year density changes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F128https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F128Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:53:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create species-rich, semi-natural grassland Twenty-eight studies monitored the effects on wildlife of restoring species-rich grassland. Of these, 20 from Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (15 replicated of which eight controlled and three also randomized) found restoring species-rich grassland resulted in higher ground beetle abundance, increased plant species richness, farmland bird abundance, pollinating insect density and diversity and earthworm abundance than other types of grassland, or that restored grasslands had similar abundance and species richness of insects to old traditionally managed sites. Seven studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (five replicated and controlled, two also randomized) found that efforts to restore species-rich grassland had no clear effect on the species richness or abundance of plants, beetles, or the abundance of butterflies and moths. Three replicated studies from Sweden and the UK (one also controlled and two site comparisons) found that restored grassland had a lower diversity and frequency of certain plant species, and attracted fewer foraging queen bumblebees than continuously grazed or unmanaged grasslands. We captured 40 studies (including 19 replicated and controlled studies of which six were also randomized, and six reviews) from nine European countries that found ten different techniques used alone or in combinations were effective for restoring species-rich grassland. Effective techniques included: grazing, introducing plant species, hay spreading and mowing. We found 22 studies from seven European countries that included information on the length of time taken to restore grassland communities (including 16 replicated trials of which nine also controlled and three reviews). Six studies saw positive signs of restoration in less than five years, 11 studies within 10 years and two studies found restoration took more than 10 years. Six studies found limited or slow changes in plant communities following restoration. Two studies from Germany and the UK (one replicated controlled trial) found differences in vegetation between restored and existing species-rich grasslands nine or 60 years after restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:41:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers Seventeen studies (including three reviews) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects of using organic rather than mineral fertilizers. Fourteen studies (including two reviews and seven replicated and controlled studies, of which four also randomized) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that areas treated with organic rather than mineral fertilizers supported higher plant diversity and cover or species richness, increased earthworm abundance or diversity, biomass and density and increased abundance and/or species richness of some or all invertebrates investigated. A literature review found organic fertilizers without pesticides produced highest earthworm biomass. A small trial in Belgium found more predatory beetles on an arable field two years after organic fertilizer application than on a control plot. One randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that using organic rather than mineral fertilizers did not affect the abundance of three weed species. A replicated study from Ireland found that the application of farmyard manure had no long-term effect on invertebrates, whilst two studies from the UK found the increase in arthropod predators and springtails was only seen at a local not a field scale. A review found one study from the UK reporting that heavy applications of slurry can be toxic to common earthworms. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:20:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example A total of fifteen studies from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland (including four replicated, controlled and randomised studies and two reviews) looked at the effects of undersowing spring cereals on biodiversity. Eleven studies (including seven replicated trials, of which one controlled and three randomized and controlled, and one review) found that undersowing spring cereals benefited some birds, plants, insects, spiders and earthworms. These benefits to farmland wildlife included increases in barnacle goose abundance, densities of singing Eurasian skylark and nesting dunnock, arthropod abundance and species richness, and bumblebee, butterfly, earthworm, ground beetle, spider or springtail abundances. Five studies from Austria, Finland and the UK (including three replicated studies of which one was also controlled and randomized, and a review) found that undersowing spring cereals did not benefit invertebrates, plants, grey partridge population indicators, or nesting densities of two out of three farmland bird species. One replicated study from the UK found only one out of five bird species was found more frequently on undersown wheat stubbles than conventionally managed barley.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low intensity agricultural systems We have captured no evidence for the effects of supporting or maintaining low intensity agricultural systems on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F141https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F141Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:23:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use traditional breeds of livestock Two UK studies (one replicated) and a review reported differences in quantities of plant species grazed, vegetation structure and invertebrate assemblages between areas grazed with different breeds of sheep or cattle. A small, replicated study found that Hebridean sheep grazed more purple moor grass than Swaledale sheep, but the resulting density of purple moor grass and heather did not differ. A UK study found that at reduced grazing pressure, traditional and commercial cattle breeds created different sward structures and associated invertebrate assemblages. One replicated trial from France, Germany and the UK found grazing by traditional rather than commercial livestock breeds had no clear effect on the number of plant species or the abundance of butterflies, grasshoppers, birds, hares, or ground-dwelling arthropods in general. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F539https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F539Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:57:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides A small scale study in the UK found that using the fungicides Propiconazole and Triadimefon reduced chick food insect abundance less than using Pyrazophos. A replicated, controlled trial in Switzerland found that applying metaldehyde slug pellets in a 50 cm band along the field edge adjacent to wildflower strips provided equivalent crop protection to broadcasting the pellets across the whole field.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F565Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:37:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow rare or declining arable weeds Two studies from the UK (both replicated, controlled and randomized) found that the establishment of rare or declining arable weeds depended upon cover crop, cultivation, timing of cut and year or a combination of cultivation in autumn and herbicide treatment.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F642https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F642Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:52:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create wood pasture One replicated controlled trial in Belgium found that protection from grazing enhanced the survival and growth of tree seedlings planted in pasture. One replicated study in Switzerland found that cattle browsing increased the mortality of tree saplings of four species, and reduced average shoot production and total above-ground biomass. Browsing frequency decreased with increasing height of the surrounding vegetation.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F644https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F644Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:01:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scaring devices (eg. gas guns) and other deterrents to reduce persecution of native species One replicated, controlled trial in Germany found phosphorescent tape was more effective than normal yellow tape at deterring deer from an area, but had no effect on wild boar or European hare.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F645https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F645Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:00:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create upland heath/moorland A small unreplicated trial of heather moorland restoration in northern England found that mowing and flail cutting along with grazing could be used to control the dominance of purple moor grass. The same study found moorland restoration benefited one bird species, with one or two pairs of northern lapwing found to breed in the area of restored moorland, where none had bred prior to restoration. A review from the UK concluded that vegetation changes took place very slowly following the removal of grazing to restore upland grassland to heather moorland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F650Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:03:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mowing techniques to reduce mortality Eight studies investigated the effects of different mowing techniques on wildlife. Seven studies (including four replicated trials of which one randomized, and one controlled and three reviews) from Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that using specific mowing techniques can reduce mortality or injury in birds, mammals, amphibians or invertebrates. A review found the UK corncrake population increased around the same period that Corncrake Friendly Mowing schemes were introduced. One replicated trial found that changing the mowing pattern reduced the number of corncrake chicks killed. Sixty-eight percent of chicks escaped mowing when fields were mown from the centre outwards, compared to 45% during conventional mowing from the field edge inwards. Six studies looked at the effects of using different mowing machinery. Two studies (one review, one randomized, replicated trial) found bar mowers and one report found double chop mowers caused less damage or lower mortality among amphibians and/or invertebrates than other types of mowing machinery. A review found evidence that twice as many small mammals were killed by rotary disc mowers with conditioners compared to double blade mowers. Two studies found that using a mechanical processor or conditioner killed or injured more invertebrates than without a conditioner, however one replicated controlled study found mower-conditioners resulted in higher Eurasian skylark nest survival than using a tedder. A review of studies found that skylark chick survival was four times higher when wider mowing machinery was used, whilst a replicated controlled trial found skylark nest survival was highest when swather mowers and forage harvesters were used.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F698Sun, 09 Dec 2012 10:30:37 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional orchards We have captured no evidence for the effects of restoring or creating traditional orchards on farmland wildlife. '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%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F701https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F701Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:15:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock) Of 27 individual studies (including 10 replicated, controlled trials, four reviews and one systematic review) from France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, 15 (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from four countries found benefits to birds, plants or invertebrates in response to reducing grazing intensity on permanent grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock). Of these 15 studies, six (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year increased the abundance and diversity of plants (Tallowin et al. 2005, Marriott et al. 2009), frequency of certain plant species, invertebrate diversity, usage by geese and the number of northern lapwing and common redshank. Six studies (including three replicated controlled trials of which two randomized) found that excluding or delaying summer grazing increased plant species diversity, invertebrate abundance and benefited breeding Eurasian skylark. A review found a study that showed that removing autumn grazing after a silage cut increased the winter abundance of seed-eating birds. A review and a replicated controlled study from the UK found that reduced grazing intensity or seasonal removal of livestock increased the number of invertebrates, plant seed heads and foraging skylark, and that some bird species preferred plots with seasonal removal of livestock. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates from reduced grazing intensity. One randomized, replicated controlled trial excluded grazing in autumn/winter and another study excluded grazing in the summer. A further study found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year did not increase plant diversity. Nine studies from France, Germany and the UK reported mixed results for some or all species or wildlife groups considered (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial and two reviews and a systematic review). Of these, eight studies found that reduced grazing intensity throughout the year benefited some species but not others, one found that the impact depended on the type of vegetation grazed, and one found benefits to bee and wasp abundance but not species richness. One study found that the response of birds to removal of summer grazing varied between functional groups and depended on time of year. A UK review found that reduced grazing benefited invertebrates, plants, rodents and some but not all birds. A systematic review of the effects of grazing intensity on meadow pasture concluded that intermediate levels of grazing are usually optimal for plants, invertebrates and birds but that trade-offs are likely to exist between the requirements of different taxa.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:20 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue