Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply 'cross compliance' environmental standards linked to all subsidy payments We have captured no evidence for the effects of applying 'cross compliance' environmental standards for all subsidy payments 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%2F70https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F70Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:59:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) We have captured no evidence for the effects of implementing food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) 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%2F71https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F71Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:01:42 +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: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks to benefit wildlife 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%2F73https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F73Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:04:36 +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: Protect in-field trees (includes management such as pollarding and surgery) We have captured no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F75https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F75Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:07:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F76https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles, 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%2F77https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F77Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:09:32 +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: Introduce nest boxes stocked with solitary bees We have captured no evidence for the effects of introducing nest boxes stocked with solitary bees 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%2F81https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F81Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:17:25 +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: Provide badger gates We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing badger gates 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%2F84https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F84Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:23:17 +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: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Five out of a total eight studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including one replicated, controlled paired study and three replicated site comparisons) looking at the effects of managing ditches on biodiversity, found that this intervention resulted in increased invertebrate biomass or abundance, plant species richness, emergent plant cover, amphibian diversity and abundance, bird visit rates and higher numbers of some bird species or positive impacts on some birds in plots with ditches managed under agri-environment schemes. One replicated controlled and paired study from the Netherlands found higher plant diversity on ditch banks along unsprayed edges of winter wheat compared to those sprayed with pesticides. Three studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including two replicated site comparisons) found that ditch management had negative or no clear effects on some farmland bird species or plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F135Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:35:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage woodland edges to benefit widlife We have captured no evidence for the effects of managing woodland edges to benefit wildlife 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%2F140https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F140Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:19:56 +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: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscapeFive studies monitored the effects of the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme at a landscape scale, including three replicated site comparisons. Of these, one found an increase in numbers of birds of some species. Two found no effect on the number of bird species or population densities of farmland birds. Three studies found mixed effects, with some species or groups of species increasing and others decreasing.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F145Sat, 14 Jan 2012 13:48:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make direct payments per clutch for farmland birds Two replicated and controlled studies from the Netherlands found limited evidence for increased wading bird populations on farms with per-clutch payments. One study found no population effects over three years. The second found slightly higher breeding densities of wading birds, but not higher overall numbers. A replicated and controlled study found higher hatching success of northern lapwing and black-tailed godwit on farms with payment schemes than control farms. A replicated site comparison from the Netherlands that looked at the effects of per-clutch payments in combination with postponed agricultural activities found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots under the per-clutch payment and postponed agricultural activities scheme but found no differences at the field-scale. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F146https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F146Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:46:56 +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: Mark bird nests during harvest or mowing One replicated study from the Netherlands found that marked northern lapwing nests were less likely to fail as a result of farming operations than unmarked nests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F148Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:52:47 +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: Manage the agricultural landscape to enhance floral resources One large replicated controlled trial showed that the average abundance of long-tongued bumblebees on field margins was positively correlated with the number of ‘pollen and nectar’ agri-environment agreements in a 10 km grid square. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F362Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:08:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedges Two studies from France and the UK compared newly planted hedges with control areas. Both (including one replicated trial) found newly planted hedges had higher abundance, species richness or diversity of beetles or spiders than crop fields or field margins. The replicated study also found vascular plant species diversity and grass species richness were higher in newly planted hedges than recently established grass field margins. A review found newly established hedges supported more ground beetles than older hedges. A small-scale study from the UK found that local hawthorn plants exhibited better growth and were more stock proof than those of eight other provenances. A literature review found lower pest outbreaks in areas with new hedges. A replicated study in the UK found that the diversity of arthropods supported by newly planted hedges varied between seven different plant species An unreplicated site comparison study in Germany found that two out of 85 ground beetle species used newly planted hedges as stepping stones for dispersal. Results from the same study found that invertebrates that moved passively (attached to mammals and birds), such as snails, benefited most from the hedge-islands compared to actively moving ground beetles and harvestmen. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F538https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F538Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:38:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Connect areas of natural or semi-natural habitat All four studies (including one site comparison and two replicated trials) from the Czech Republic, Germany and the Netherlands investigating the effects of habitat corridors or restoring areas of natural or semi-natural habitat between existing patches found some degree of colonization of these areas by invertebrates or mammals. However for invertebrates one unreplicated site comparison reported that the colonization process was slow (Gruttke 1994), and three studies found that the extent of colonization varied between invertebrate taxa. One small, replicated study from the Czech Republic investigated colonization of two bio-corridors by small mammal species. It found more small mammal species in the bio-corridors than in an adjacent forest or arable fields. All three studies from Germany and the Netherlands looking at the effects on invertebrates found mixed results. One replicated study found more species of some wasps (cavity-nesting wasps and caterpillar-hunting wasps) in grass strips connected to forest edges than in isolated strips. An unreplicated study found that the abundance of three ground beetle species substantially increased in an arable field undergoing restoration to heathland but that typical heathland species failed to colonize over the 12 year period. One study found that two out of 85 ground beetle species used a meadow and hedge-island strip extending from semi-natural habitats into arable farmland. In the same study the habitat strip did not function well for ground beetles and harvestmen but was colonized by snails and spiders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F579Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:08:34 +0100