Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide or fertilizer use Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing pesticide, herbicide or fertilizer use. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that farming without pesticides or fertilizers did not increase small mammal species richness in field margins. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies, in the UK and Italy, found that reducing pesticide or fertilizer use, by farming organically, increased wood mouse abundance. The other study found that it did not increase European hare abundance. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Argentina found that farming without pesticides or fertilizers did not increase small mammal use of field margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2539https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2539Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:16:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving headlands in fields unsprayed. One study was in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one also controlled) in the UK and the Netherlands, found that crop edge headlands that were not sprayed with pesticides were used more by mice than were sprayed crop edges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2540Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:43:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish riparian buffers We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of establishing riparian buffers. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2541Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:51:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals away from site contaminated by oil spill One study evaluated the effects of translocating mammals away from a site contaminated by oil spill. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in the USA found that after being translocated in a trial of responses to a hypothetical pollution incident, most sea-otters survived for the duration of monitoring. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A study in the USA found that after being translocated in a trial of responses to a hypothetical pollution incident, most sea-otters did not return to their capture location. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2542https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2542Mon, 08 Jun 2020 20:32:49 +0100