Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review,  examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland Three replicated studies and a review of five studies from Europe and North America examining species richness or diversity found that more species were found on set-aside than on crops. One found fewer species on set-aside than other agricultural habitats. All 21 studies, including a systematic review, 12 replicated experiments and two reviews, from Europe and North America that investigated population trends or habitat associations found that some species were found at higher densities or used set-aside more than other habitats, or were found on set-aside. Four studies (three replicated) from the UK found that some species were found at lower densities on set-aside compared to other habitats. Three of four replicated studies from the UK found that waders and Eurasian skylarks had higher productivities on set-aside, compared to other habitats. One study found that skylarks nesting on set-aside had lower productivity compared to those on cereal crops, and similar productivities to those on other crops. One replicated paired study from the UK found that rotational set-aside was used more than non-rotational set-aside, a replicated paired study found no differences between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. A review from Europe and North America found that naturally regenerated set-aside held more birds and more species than sown set-aside. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175Sun, 27 May 2012 15:10:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields for birds One replicated controlled study from the USA found that there were more species in fields bordered by margins than unbordered fields. Two replicated studies from the UK, one with paired sites, found no effect of field margins on species richness. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that more birds and more species used sown strips in fields than the fields themselves, but even more used field margins. Nine studies from the UK and USA, seven replicated, two controlled, found more positive population trends, higher populations or strong habitat associations for some or all species for sites with grass margins to fields. One study investigated multiple interventions. Three replicated studies from the UK found that grass field margins did not have a positive effect on populations of some or all bird species investigated. Both studies that examined habitat use (one replicated, both from the UK) found that species used margins more than other habitats. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that birds used cut margins more than uncut margins during winter but less than other management regimes during summer. The authors argue that management type is more important than the seed mix used to sow the margins. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix had smaller broods in grass margins than other habitat types.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:39:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare birds from fish farms One before-and-after study from Israel found that the population of pygmy cormorants in the area increased after birds were scared away from fish farms, possibly due to lower persecution. One of two studies that examined fish stocks found that fewer fish were taken from a farm when heron distress calls were played. The other study, a literature review, found no evidence for the effects of scaring birds on fish stocks. Two replicated studies from Belgium and Australia found that using foot patrols to disturb birds from fish farms did not reduce the number of birds present or fish consumption. Ten of eleven studies from across the world, three controlled, found evidence that playing distress calls or using other acoustic deterrents (some with flashes of light) reduced the number of birds at fish farms, or changed bird behaviours. One of these involved underwater broadcasting. One study found effects were only temporary and five found that birds became habituated to noises. Four studies, one replicated and controlled, two before-and-after, found that acoustic deterrents were not effective in scaring birds. Five of seven studies, one controlled, found evidence that visual deterrents (including inflatable ‘Scarey Man’ scarecrows) reduced the number of birds at fish farms. Three found evidence for habituation to deterrents and three studies found no evidence that visual deterrents were effective. Two studies examined other deterrents, finding that trained raptors were effective but that the effects of helicopters and ultra-light aircraft were either inconclusive or very temporary.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F244https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F244Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:00:04 +0100
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