Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide or herbicide use generally A single small study from the UK investigated population level effects of reduced chemical inputs, and found that the populations of some species increased when pesticide use was restricted alongside other interventions. Three studies, two replicated, one controlled, from the UK found that some or all species were found at higher densities on sites with reduced pesticide inputs, in one case with other interventions as well. Five studies from the UK, four replicated, four controlled, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities on fields or sites with reduced chemical inputs, or were not associated with reduced inputs. A controlled before-and-after study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix chicks had higher survival on sites with reduced pesticide applications. A replicated study from the UK found that reduced chemical inputs had a negative relationship with partridge brood size and no relationship with survival or the ratio of young to old birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F454Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:08:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals for birdsA small scale study found that Pyrazophos reduced chick food abundance more than other foliar fungicides. A before-and-after study from Spain found that the population of griffon vultures Gyps fulvus increased in the study area following multiple interventions including the banning of strychnine. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F455Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:24:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide food for vultures to reduce mortality from diclofenacA before-and-after trial in Pakistan found that oriental white-backed vulture Gyps bengalensis mortality rates were significantly lower when supplementary food was provided, compared to when it was not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F456Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:30:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make selective use of spring herbicides We found no evidence for the effects of selective use of spring herbicides on bird populations. '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%2F457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F457Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:33:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers We found no evidence for the effects of using organic, not mineral, fertilisers on bird populations. '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%2F458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F458Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce chemical inputs in permanent grassland managementA randomised, replicated, controlled study from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted to pasture plots with no fertiliser, compared to control plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F459Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:37:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Three studies from Europe, two replicated, found that conservation headlands were frequently used by some of all of the bird species studied, or were strongly associated with species. A review from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix populations were far larger on farms with conservation headlands and other interventions in place than other farms. Two replicated studies from Europe found that species were not associated with, or were no more abundant on, conservation headlands, compared with control fields. All four studies, three replicated, that investigated survival found higher grey partridge Perdix perdix chick or adult survival on sites with conservation headlands than control sites. One found that this difference was not significant. Five studies from Europe, four replicated, found larger grey partridge broods on farms with conservation headlands, one study found that differences were not significant. One replicated study from the UK found that fewer broods were found in fields with conservation headlands. Another replicated study from the UK found no relationship between conservation headlands and partridge brood size or young to adult ratio. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:39:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable fields We found no evidence describing the effects of unfertilised cereal headlands on bird populations. '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%2F462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F462Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:07:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips along rivers and streams We did not find any evidence describing the impact of riparian strips on reducing water pollution and how this affected bird populations. However, riparian strips also provide valuable habitats in their own right. Studies describing the use of riparian strips by birds are described in ‘Habitat restoration and creation’. '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%2F463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F463Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:08:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips around in-field ponds We found no evidence describing the effect of buffer strips around in-field ponds on pollution levels and bird populations. '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%2F464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F464Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:09:56 +0100