Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems We captured no evidence for the effects of supporting low-intensity agricultural systems 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%2F168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F168Sun, 20 May 2012 13:05:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practice integrated farm management We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of practicing integrated farm management 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%2F169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming We captured no evidence for the effects of food labelling schemes 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%2F170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F170Sun, 20 May 2012 13:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape Of four studies captured, one, a replicated and controlled paired sites study from Australia, found that farms with plantings of native vegetation held more species than those without. The effect was smaller than that explained by variation in the amount of natural habitat remaining on farms. A replicated study from Switzerland found more species in areas under the Ecological Compensation Area scheme than areas not under it. A before-and-after study from Switzerland found that the populations of three bird species increased after an increase in the amount of land under the Ecological Compensation Scheme. This study found that three species were more found more than expected on Ecological Compensation Scheme land. Another replicated study from Switzerland found that some habitats held more birds if they were close to ECA habitat but that the amount of Ecological Compensation Scheme in an area had no impact on population densities. A small study from the UK found no effect of habitat creation on grey partridge populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:01 +0100Collected 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: Cross compliance standards for all subsidy paymentsApart from the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme (considered in another section), we found no studies comparing the effects of cross compliance standards with other means of implementing agri-environmental measures, or that considered the effects of cross compliance by monitoring farmland bird populations before and after it was implemented.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173Sun, 27 May 2012 14:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of reducing field sizes 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%2F174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F174Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:15 +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: Manage hedges to benefit birds The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites. Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once. One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedgesA small study from the USA found that the population of northern bobwhites increased following several interventions including the planting of new hedges.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178Wed, 30 May 2012 14:09:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds We found no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks 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%2F179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F179Wed, 30 May 2012 14:13:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Three out of four replicated studies from the UK found that some farmland birds responded positively to the presence of ditches managed for wildlife. All three also found that some species did not respond positively or responded negatively to management. A replicated, controlled and paired sites study from the UK found that bunded ditches were visited by more birds than non-bunded ditches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180Wed, 30 May 2012 14:17:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of protecting in-field trees 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%2F184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F184Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:59:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F185Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:00:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Tree pollarding and tree surgery We found no evidence for the effects of tree pollarding and tree surgery 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%2F186https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F186Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:01:16 +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 nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips for birds Two replicated and controlled studies from the UK (one randomised) and a European review out of seven studies captured found that more birds used nectar/wildflower strips than crops or land under other management. Two studies of a replicated and controlled experiment in the UK found that no more birds used nectar/wildflower strips in winter than used land under other management. A replicated, controlled study from Switzerland found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis were more likely to nest in patches of fields sown with annual weeds than in crops, and were less likely to abandon nests in these patches. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that field margin management affected their use by birds more than the seed mix used on them.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:33:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields for birds A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that three sparrow species found on uncultivated margins were not found on mown field edges. A replicated study from Canada found fewer species in uncultivated margins than in hedges or in trees planted as windbreaks. Three replicated studies from the USA and UK, one controlled, found that some birds were associated with uncultivated margins, or that birds were more abundant on margins than on other habitats. One study found that these effects were very weak. Four replicated studies (two of the same experiment) from the UK, two controlled, found that uncultivated margins contained similar numbers of birds in winter, or that several species studied did not show associations with margins. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella used uncultivated margins more than crops in early summer, but use fell in uncut margins in late summer. Cut margins however, were used more than other habitat types late in summer. A replicated study from the UK found high rates of survival for grey partridge Perdix perdix released in margins.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F190Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:47:53 +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: Use mowing techniques to reduce chick mortality A review from the UK found a large increase in corncrake Crex crex populations in the UK following a scheme to delay mowing and promote corncrake-friendly mowing techniques. One replicated controlled study from the UK and a review from the UK found lower levels of mortality of corncrakes and Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis when wildlife-friendly mowing techniques were used, compared to other techniques.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F192Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:30:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave refuges in fields during harvest A replicated study in France found that fewer gamebirds came into contact with mowing machinery when refuges were left in fields than when they were not left. A review from the UK found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis did not nest at higher densities in uncut refuges than in the rest of the fields.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F193Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:35:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark nests during harvestA replicated study from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus nests were less likely to be destroyed when they were marked, compared to when they were not.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F194https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F194Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:39:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate nests at harvest time to reduce nestling mortalityA replicated controlled study from Spain found that clutches that were temporarily removed from fields during harvest and then replaced had higher hatching and fledging rates than control clutches. Effects were greater on clutches that were older when moved.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F195https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F195Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:41:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Offer per clutch payment for farmland birds One of two replicated and controlled studies from the Netherlands found that farms with per clutch payments held slightly higher breeding densities of waders, but not higher overall numbers than control farms. One study found no population effects over three years. A replicated and controlled study found higher hatching success on farms with payment schemes than control farms.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F196Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:50:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control scrub on farmlandA replicated study from the UK found a negative relationship between the number of young grey partridge Perdix perdix per adult and a combined intervention of scrub control, rough grazing and the restoration of various semi-natural habitats.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F197https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F197Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:55:08 +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