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: Provide foraging perches (eg. for shrikes) We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing foraging perches (eg. for shrikes) 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%2F79https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F79Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:12:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary bees or bumblebees) Ten studies (nine replicated trials and a review of studies) from Germany, Poland and the UK of solitary bee nest boxes all showed the nest boxes were readily used by bees. Two replicated studies found the local population size or number of emerging red mason bees increased when nest boxes were provided. One replicated trial in Germany showed that the number of occupied solitary bee nests almost doubled over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. Two replicated trials tested bumblebee nest boxes and both found very low uptake, 2% or less. Occupancy rates of solitary bee nest boxes, where reported (two replicated studies), were between 1 and 26% of available cavities. Five studies (four replicated trials and a review of studies) report the number of bee species found in the nest boxes – between 4.6 and 33 species. One replicated study from Germany found nest boxes should be placed 150-600 m from forage resources (Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002). A replicated study from Poland found the highest production of red mason bees per nest was from nesting materials of reed stems or wood. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F80Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide red squirrel feeders We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing red squirrel feeders 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%2F82https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F82Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:21:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide otter holts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing otter holts 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%2F83https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F83Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Re-wet moorland We have captured no evidence for the effects of re-wetting moorland 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%2F103https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F103Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:57:49 +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: Provide medicated grit for grouse A controlled study in England found that red grouse had higher productivity in areas where medicated grit was provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F112https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F112Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:12:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training for land managers, farmers and farm advisers One study from the UK found farmers who were trained in how to implement agri-environment schemes created better quality wildlife habitat over five years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F113Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide specialist advice, assistance preparing conservation plans We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing specialist advice and/or assistance in preparing conservation plans 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%2F114https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F114Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:14:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide short grass for birds A replicated UK study found that common starlings and northern lapwing spent more time foraging on short grass, compared to longer grass, and that starlings captured more prey in short grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:15:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water levels in ditches or grassland Seven studies from Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK (two replicated controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) found that raising water levels in ditches or grassland was associated with increased bird numbers, breeding bird numbers, plant species that favour wet conditions, and invertebrate numbers or biomass in agricultural landscapes. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands and the UK found that raising water levels resulted in a net loss of plant species and did not affect lapwing foraging rate. A review found three studies reporting that re-wetting soils on old arable fields is not an effective method of reducing nutrient levels and restoring species-rich grassland. A replicated study from the UK found that unflooded pastures contained a high biomass of soil macroinvertebrates of importance to breeding wading birds. A controlled, randomized study from the Netherlands found that raising the water level resulted in a more rapid establishment of species typical of wet grassland, than vegetation management. A review of agri-environment schemes from the UK found studies that suggested more expensive agri-environment scheme options for wetland habitats, such as controlling water levels, were more effective at providing good habitat for wading birds than easier-to-implement options. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F121https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F121Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:14:13 +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: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife A replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that raised mowing heights provided benefits to Eurasian skylark including increased productivity. A review found raised cutting heights were less damaging to amphibians and invertebrates. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial from the UK found that raising mowing height on grasslands had no effect on numbers of foraging birds or invertebrates. One replicated controlled study found no difference in invertebrate abundance. One replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common starling chicks had greater foraging success in shorter grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during harvest or mowing Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:49:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide owl nest boxes (Tawny owl, Barn owl) Two studies from the UK (a before-and-after study and a controlled study) found that the provision of owl nest boxes in farm buildings maintained barn owl nesting and roosting activity and resulted in an increase in population density. A study from the Netherlands found that the barn owl population increased with increased availability of nest boxes. A replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile barn owls fledged from nest boxes were significantly less likely to be recovered alive than those reared in church towers. A replicated study from the UK investigating barn owl nest site use, found that the number of occupied nest sites and the proportion breeding decreased from 2001 to 2009, but were unaffected by the number of boxes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:38:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide nest boxes for birds Two studies (including one before and after study) from the Netherlands and the UK found that following the provision of nest boxes there was an increase in the number of Eurasian kestrel clutches and breeding tree sparrows. One replicated study from Switzerland found the number of Eurasian wryneck broods in nest boxes declined over five years whilst the number of Eurasian hoopoe broods increased. Eight studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (six were replicated) found that nest boxes in agricultural habitats were occupied by Eurasian kestrel, long-eared owl, common starling, tits Parus spp., tree sparrow, stock dove and jackdaw, and Eurasian wryneck and Eurasian hoopoe. Whilst two studies from the UK (a replicated, paired site study and a controlled study) found that carrion crows did not nest in artificial trees and tree sparrows showed a preference for nest boxes in wetland habitat, compared to those in farmland sites. Two replicated studies from Sweden found that nest success within boxes was related to the amount of pasture available and nest boxes positioned higher above the ground had higher occupancy, numbers of eggs and numbers of hatched young.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F155Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:49:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals A total of 18 individual studies investigated the effects of providing supplementary food. Nine studies from France, Sweden and the UK (six replicated studies, of which five controlled and one also randomized and paired) found that the provision of supplementary food increased farmland bird abundance, breeding population size, density, body mass, hatching, nestling growth and fledging rates, increased overwinter survival of a declining house sparrow population and that fed male hen harriers bred with more females than control birds. Two studies did not separate the effects of several other interventions carried out on the same study site. Four studies from the UK and Finland (three replicated studies, of which one controlled and one randomized) found that farmland songbirds and field voles (field voles on unmown plots only) used supplementary food when provided, including the majority of targeted species such as tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting. Five replicated studies from the UK (of which two also controlled) found that the provision of supplementary food had no clear effect on farmland bird breeding abundance, European turtle dove reproductive success, territory size or territory density, overwinter survival of three stable house sparrow populations, tree sparrow nest box use, or the abundance of weed seeds on the soil surface. One replicated, controlled study from Sweden found no effect of supplementary food provision on common starling clutch size or nestling weight, and lower fledging rates in nests which received supplementary food compared to nests without supplementary food in one year. Four studies from the UK (two replicated of which one was also randomized and controlled) found that the use of supplementary food by farmland birds varied between species and region, depended upon the time of year and proximity to other feeding stations and natural feeding areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce chemical inputs in grassland management A total of 16 studies (including five reviews) investigated the effects of reducing inputs in permanent grasslands. Six studies from the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK (including one review and four replicated studies of which one was also controlled and one a randomized and controlled before-and-after trial) found that stopping fertilizer inputs in permanent grassland resulted in an increase in plant species richness, reduced the rate of plant species loss and attracted a higher abundance or species richness of some or all invertebrates studied. One review from the Netherlands found that low fertilizer input grasslands favour common meadow bird species. One review found a study showing that densities of some invertebrates were higher in unfertilized plots compared with those receiving nitrogen inputs. Two replicated, controlled trials from the Czech Republic and the UK (one randomized) found that applying fertilizer to permanent grasslands reduced plant species richness or diversity and that the effects on plant communities were still apparent 16 years after the cessation of fertilizer application. Four studies from Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated trials of which one randomized and one controlled and a review) found that reducing fertilizer inputs on grassland had no clear or rapid effect on plant species richness. A review found no clear effect of reducing fertilizer inputs on the density of soil-dwelling invertebrates. One replicated study found that fertilizer treatment only affected seed production of a small number of meadow plants. One replicated study from the UK found lower invertebrate abundance on plots with reduced fertilizer inputs but the differences were not significant.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F694Sat, 01 Dec 2012 17:52:25 +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