Establish long-term cover on erodible cropland

How is the evidence assessed?

Study locations

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland. This study was in the USA.



  • Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA, found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland did not increase the abundance of eastern cottontails.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, site comparison study in 1989–1990 on six areas of mostly arable farmland in Nebraska, USA (King & Savidge 1995) found that establishing long-term cover on erodible cropland was not associated with increased abundance of eastern cottontails Sylvilagus floridanus. The number of cottontails counted in areas with 18–21% long-term cover (2.1–6.7 cottontails/block) did not differ significantly from that in areas with 2–3% long-term cover (4.1–8.8 cottontails/block). Within six 23-km2 farmland blocks, the proportion of land managed under an agri-environment scheme aimed at diversifying long-term cover types and reducing crop production was determined. In three blocks, 18–21% of cropland was in the scheme and in the other three, 2–3% was in the scheme. Long-term cover, established under 10-year contracts, included establishment of grasses and legumes. Live cottontails were counted from a vehicle while driving at 30–40 km/h, in May and June of 1989 and 1990.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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