Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce agri-environment schemes to benefit wild beesFour replicated trials in Europe have shown enhanced diversity and/or abundance of foraging wild bees on land managed under various European agri-environment schemes, relative to conventionally-managed fields or field margins. These schemes were the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas (one replicated trial), the German organic arable farming option (one replicated trial), the Dutch botanical and meadow bird agreements (one replicated trial, very low numbers of bee species) and the Scottish Rural Stewardship Scheme (one replicated trial, also included nest-searching queen bumblebees). Four replicated trials in Europe found that the number of bees and/or bee species is not enhanced on land managed under agri-environment schemes, including meadow bird agreements in wet grassland in the Netherlands, measures to protect steppe-living birds and compensation measures around a National Park in Spain, and 6 m wide grass field margin strips in England (one replicated trial for each). On a wider landscape scale, two replicated trials in the UK have found bumblebee populations were not enhanced on farmland managed under agri-environment schemes. One trial compared the reproductive success of colonies of the buff-tailed bumblebee Bombus terrestris, the other compared queen bumblebee numbers in spring in conventionally managed field margins, on farms with and without agri-environment schemes.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F24https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F24Thu, 20 May 2010 16:11:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create patches of bare ground for ground-nesting beesOne replicated controlled trial in Germany and four small trials (three replicated, one not) have shown that artificially exposed areas of bare soil can be successfully colonised by ground-nesting solitary bees and wasps in the first or second year. We have captured no evidence for the effect of creating areas of bare ground on bee populations or communities on a larger scale.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13Thu, 20 May 2010 19:29:53 +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: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Three studies from the UK, two replicated, found that there were higher densities of some study species on undersown fields or margins, compared with other fields, or that use of fields increased after they were undersown. One of these (reported in two places) found that not all species nested at higher densities. One replicated study from the UK found that various measures of grey partridge population health declined as the amount of undersown cereal on sites increased. A replicated study from the UK found no relationship between the amount of undersown cereals on a site and the productivity of grey partridge on that site.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:28:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce and enforce regulations for marine and freshwater mammal watching tours Four studies evaluated the effects of introducing regulations for marine and freshwater mammal watching tours on marine mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (the Azores), the Cananéia estuary (Brazil), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and the Bass Strait (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean and South Pacific Ocean found that when whale-watching vessels followed approach regulations, fewer sperm whales and humpback whale pods changed their behaviours (e.g. swimming speed, aerial displays) or avoided the vessels compared to when regulations were not followed, but direction of movement and diving patterns or diving behaviours did not differ. One replicated, controlled study in the Cananéia estuary found that when tour boats followed approach regulations, fewer Guiana dolphins displayed negative behaviours (e.g. moving away, diving, groups separating). One study in the Bass Strait found that when boats approached a seal colony to 75 m, more seals remained on shore than when boats approached to 25 m. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2838https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2838Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:16:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure Four studies evaluated the effects of using acoustic devices to deter marine and freshwater mammals from an area to reduce noise exposure. Two studies were in the North Sea (Germany), one study was in the Great Belt (Denmark) and one was in Faxaflói Bay (Iceland). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Three studies (including two controlled and one before-and-after study) in the North Sea and the Great Belt found that using acoustic devices to deter mammals from an area at a wind farm construction site or pelagic sites reduced the activity and sightings of harbour porpoises at distances of 1–18 km from the devices. One before-and-after study in Faxaflói Bay found that when an acoustic device was deployed from a boat, minke whales swam away from the device, increased their swimming speed, and swam more directly. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2896https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2896Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:04:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for marine and freshwater mammals Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for marine and freshwater mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), the North Sea (UK) and the Port River estuary (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a population of Mediterranean monk seals increased during eight years after the islands they inhabited were legally protected. One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that a population of bottlenose dolphins was estimated to be a similar size before and after part of its range was protected. Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that the survival rate of Hector’s dolphins was higher after a coastal area was legally protected than before. One before-and-after study in the Port River estuary found that after the area became legally protected a similar number of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin strandings were recorded compared to before protection, but the number of strandings caused by humans decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:29:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate marine and freshwater mammals to re-establish or boost native populations Four studies evaluated the effects of translocating marine mammals to re-establish or boost native populations. The four studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One replicated study and one review in the North Pacific Ocean found that after translocating Hawaiian monk seals, along with rehabilitation or at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, more than a quarter of the seals reproduced. Survival (4 studies): Two studies (including one replicated and one controlled study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that 50–83% of translocated, and 52% of rehabilitated and translocated, Hawaiian monk seal pups survived for at least one year. One of the studies and one review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocated seal pups had similar survival rates to non-translocated pups born at release sites or greater survival rates than non-translocated pups remaining at the original site. One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocating Hawaiian monk seals, along with at least seven other interventions to enhance survival, resulted in more than a quarter of the seals surviving. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One review in the North Pacific Ocean found that translocated Hawaiian monk seal pups had similar dispersal times to non-translocated seal pups born at release sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2930https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2930Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:11:40 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grassland plants Four studies examined the effects of planting grassland plants on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of the UK, Germany and the USA. One review included studies from the UK and Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting seedlings in addition to sowing seeds increased the number of plant species compared to sowing seeds alone. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that planting plants increased species richness of grasses in 50% of cases. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that planting plants increased species richness of forbs in 83% of cases. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting plants in addition to sowing seeds increased the number of native plant species compared to sowing seeds alone. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One study in Germany found that transplanted pepper saxifrage plants increased in number and spread to adjacent grassland. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One review in the UK and Australia found that planting grassland plants had mixed effects on planted species abundance. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in Germany found that 44% of new seedlings from transplanted pepper saxifrage plants survived over four months. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3399Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:56:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow or plant nurse plants (alongside seeding/planting of grassland species) Four studies examined the effects of sowing or planting nurse plants alongside seeding/planting grassland species on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in Europe, one study was in the USA and one was in Kenya. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Slovenia found that sowing a seed mix containing nurse species resulted in a community composition that was less similar to the target community when compared to sowing a seed mix that did not contain nurse species. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Slovenia found that sowing a seed mix containing nurse species did not increase species richness compared to sowing a seed mix that did not contain nurse species. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (1 STUDY) Grass abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds of nurse plants alongside that of grassland species did not change grass abundance. Forb abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that sowing seeds of nurse plants alongside that of grassland species did not change forb abundance. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that sowing seeds under nurse plants increased seed germination. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in Kenya and Spain found that sowing seeds or planting under nurse plants increased survival of planted plants. The other study found that sowing seeds under nurse plants initially increased seedling survival, but there was no difference in survival after two to three years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3402Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:22:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Spray slurry of seed, mulch and water (‘hydroseeding’) Four studies examined the effects of spraying a slurry of seed, mulch and water (‘hydroseeding’) on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in Spain, one study was in the USA and one was in Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized and paired) in Spain and Italy found that hydroseeding with non-native seeds did not alter plant diversity in most cases. The other study found that hydroseeding increased plant species richness in one of two cases. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two controlled studies (one of which was replicated, randomized and paired) in Spain found that hydroseeding with non-native seeds increased overall plant cover in most cases. The other study found that hydroseeding did not alter vegetation cover. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that hydroseeding increased the abundance of half of the sown plant species compared to drill seeding. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (1 STUDY) Height (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Italy found that hydroseeding led to an increase in the height of herb species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3412Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Apply herbicide before seeding/planting Four studies examined the effects of applying herbicide before seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Two studies were in the USA and one study was in each of Germany and the UK. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (1 STUDY) Sown/planted species richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found that applying herbicide before sowing seeds increased sown species richness. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that spraying with herbicide before sowing seeds increased the cover of sown grass species. Forb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that spraying with herbicide before sowing grass seeds did not alter or reduced the density of native forb species. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that spraying with herbicide before sowing grass seeds led to an increase in the density of shrubs. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that spraying with herbicide before sowing grass seeds did not alter the density of crested wheatgrass. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Germany found that spraying with herbicide before sowing seeds increased seedling emergence for five of eight wildflower species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3418Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:22:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Transfer plant material from intact grassland alongside seeding/planting Four studies examined the effects of transferring plant material from intact grassland alongside seeding/planting on grassland vegetation. Three studies were in Germany and one was in Hungary. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (3 STUDIES) Characteristic plant richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies, one of which was paired) in Germany and Hungary found that transferring hay alongside sowing seeds did not alter target grass and forb species richness. The other study found that transferring hay alongside sowing seeds increased the species richness of target plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (3 STUDIES) Characteristic plant abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies, one of which was paired) in Germany and Hungary found that transferring hay alongside sowing seeds did not alter the cover of target grass and forb species. The other study found that transferring hay alongside sowing seeds increased the cover of target plant species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Germination/Emergence (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Germany found that transferring plant material alongside sowing seeds did not alter seedling emergence when small amounts of plant material were added, but seedling emergence was reduced when large amounts of plant material were added. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3426https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3426Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:14:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in marinas in France and Morocco, while one was in each of a lagoon in Mayotte and a port in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the juvenile fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site and survey month. Swimthrough habitats supported six species that were absent from structure surfaces without swimthroughs. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish species richness on and around structure surfaces, depending on the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Fish abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species, site, survey month and/or juvenile development stage. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating small swimthrough habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on juvenile seabream habitat use on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species and juvenile development stage. Two studies (including one replicated study) in Mayotte and Morocco reported that small swimthrough habitats, along with large swimthroughs and environmentally-sensitive material in one, were used by juvenile spiny lobsters, sea firs, adult fish and/or juvenile fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3436Fri, 13 Aug 2021 12:15:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small ridges or ledges (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and two were in estuaries in Hong Kong and southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (4 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, did increase the species richness, and that varying the habitat size and arrangement had mixed effects, depending on the shore level. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, paired sites study) in Hong Kong and Australia found that small ridges or ledges supported lower species richness than grooves created in between them, but one of them found that species diversity on ridges compared with grooves varied depending on the ridge height. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate species richness than grooves created in between them. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish species richness to grooves created in between them. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small ridges on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small ridges, along with grooves, small protrusions and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of ridges and other habitats. One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges supported similar abundance to grooves created in between them. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported lower mobile invertebrate and oyster abundances than grooves created in between them. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated study in Australia found that small ledges created on intertidal artificial structures supported similar fish abundance to grooves created in between them. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3464Tue, 14 Sep 2021 16:00:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Four studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in the UK and the Netherlands, one was in a port in the Netherlands, and one was on an open coastline and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces, depending on the type of texture created and the site. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Algal abundance (2 studies): Two replicated, paired sites, controlled studies in the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. Invertebrate abundance (4 studies): Two of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the UK and the Netherlands reported that creating textured surfaces on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on barnacle and mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site. One found increased barnacle abundance, regardless of the type of texture created, but that different textures supported different abundances. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3466Wed, 15 Sep 2021 16:05:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practise ‘wildlife gardening’ Four studies evaluated the effects of practising wildlife gardening on butterflies and moths. Two were in the UK and one was in each of France and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that areas with reduced frequency weeding had a similar species richness of adult butterflies compared to areas with conventional weeding. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one paired, controlled study) in the UK and the USA found that increasing the number and age of potted nettle plants in gardens and weeding less frequently did not increase abundance of butterflies, all caterpillars and caterpillars and eggs of four target species. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gardens where insecticides and herbicides were not used and where there were natural features had a higher abundance of butterflies, but gardens where fungicides and snail pellets were not used had a lower abundance of butterflies. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated study in the UK reported that caterpillars only occasionally used potted nettle plants in gardens. One site comparison study in the UK found that planted buddleia and marjoram were visited by adult butterflies and moths more frequently than other plant species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3834Mon, 04 Jul 2022 15:12:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create new habitats after mining and quarrying Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating new habitats after mining and quarrying. Two studies were in the Czech Republic, and one was in each of the UK and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that 15% of 380 invertebrate species (including 208 moth species) were only found on flattened spoil heaps, compared to 30% which were only found on unflattened heaps. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that technically restored quarries had a lower species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than quarries left to restore naturally. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Czech Republic found that flattened spoil heaps had a lower species richness of moths than unflattened spoil heaps. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that on slate waste tips trees where fertilizer was applied had a similar abundance of caterpillars to trees that were unfertilized. One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported a similar density of Fred the thread moth caterpillars to undisturbed bogs. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in New Zealand found that a peat bog restored after mining supported Fred the thread moth caterpillars of a similar size to caterpillars on undisturbed bogs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3862https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3862Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:53:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging. Two studies were in Brazil and one was in each of Sweden and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at different intensities had a different community composition of fruit-feeding butterflies to pristine forest. Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests harvested by single tree selection had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One site comparison study in Brazil found that a forest managed by reduced impact logging had a similar species richness and diversity of butterflies to primary forest. One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at different intensities had a similar species richness of fruit-feeding butterflies. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Sweden found that selectively logged forests had a higher abundance of exposed moth caterpillars, but a similar abundance of concealed moth caterpillars, to clearcut forests, and a similar abundance of all moth caterpillars to undisturbed forests. One site comparison study in Brazil found that a forest managed by reduced impact logging had a higher abundance of butterflies than primary forest. One replicated, site comparison study in Brazil found that forests managed by reduced impact logging at intermediate intensity had a higher abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies than forests managed by high or low intensity reduced impact logging. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3867https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3867Fri, 08 Jul 2022 12:00:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest. One study was in each of Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Ghana and Uganda. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were more frequently caught in a naturally regenerating forest than in a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that the moth community was different between naturally regenerating forests of different ages. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had a butterfly community more similar to forest replanted nine years ago than a primary forest or a clear-cut area. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater species richness of moths than plantations. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had lower butterfly species richness than a primary forest, but similar richness to a clear-cut area and a nine-year old replanted forest, and lower community diversity than a primary forest and a clear-cut area. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar species richness of butterflies to pristine forests, but richness was highest 12–25 years after felling. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater abundance of moths than plantations. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar abundance of butterflies to pristine forests, but abundance was highest 12–25 years after felling. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to establish populations outside of known range Four studies evaluated the effects of translocating butterflies and moths to establish populations outside of their known range. Two studies were in the USA and one was in each of the Czech Republic and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three studies in the USA and the UK reported that populations of Gillette’s checkerspot, small skipper and marbled white translocated outside of their native range as eggs or adults (in one case including captive-bred individuals) persisted and increased in abundance over eight and 28 years. The third study reported that a population of Gillette’s checkerspot adults, eggs and caterpillars translocated outside their native range died out within one year. Condition (1 study): One study in the Czech Republic found that 69 years after translocation, an introduced population of the small mountain ringlet butterfly had similar genetic diversity to its source population, and higher genetic diversity than a small native population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3911https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3911Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:38:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots Four studies evaluated the effects of leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on butterflies and moths. Three were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study, one replicated, randomized, site comparison study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Switzerland found that farms managed under agri-environment schemes, or with a greater area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, both including uncropped cultivated margins, had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to conventional farms or farms with a smaller area of in-field options. The other study found that fields with wider margins between crops had higher butterfly species richness in one of two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the UK found that fields with wider margins between crops had a higher abundance of butterflies in one of two years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that farms managed under agri-environment schemes (AES), including uncropped cultivated margins, had a higher abundance of butterflies and micro-moths, but a similar abundance of other moths, compared to conventionally managed farms. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that farms managed with enhanced AES options, including uncropped, cultivated margins, had a higher abundance of some butterflies, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms with simpler AES management. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field AES options, including uncropped, cultivated plots, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field AES options. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3923https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3923Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:56:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating raised beetle banks in arable fields. All four were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that beetle banks and field margins managed under agri-environment schemes had a higher species richness of micro-moths, and a similar species richness of macro-moths, than conventionally managed field margins. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that the species richness of butterflies on beetle banks was lower than along hedgerows. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the UK found that beetle banks had a similar abundance of caterpillars to field margins, crop fields and a range of other field-edge farmland habitats. One of these studies also found that the abundance of adult butterflies was lower on beetle banks than along hedgerows. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that beetle banks and field margins managed under agri-environment schemes had a higher abundance of micro-moths, and a similar abundance of macro-moths, than conventionally managed field margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3927https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3927Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:12:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or create bare ground Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining or creating bare ground. Two studies were in the UK, and one was in each of the Netherlands and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a similar species richness of both grassland butterflies and disturbance-tolerant butterflies to undisturbed margins. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a higher abundance of disturbance-tolerant, but not grassland, butterflies to undisturbed margins. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that Alcon large blue occupied a similar proportion of heathlands managed with sod cutting and unmanaged heathlands. However, the same study found that Alcon large blues were less likely to occur on heathlands where sod cutting and grazing were used together. One site comparison study in the UK found that a sand dune plot which had been stripped of turf and soil supported a translocated population of belted beauty moths, but a plot which had been strimmed and raked did not. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK reported that 2-3 years after bare ground plots were created, some were used by caterpillars or adult moths of one or more of the grey carpet, lunar yellow underwing, forester and marbled clover, but none by the basil thyme case-bearer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:53:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change type of livestock grazing Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of changing the type of livestock grazing. One study was in each of the UK, Sweden, China and France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one paired, site comparison study and one randomized, controlled study) in Sweden and France found that semi-natural grasslands grazed by cattle or horses had a greater species richness of butterflies and burnet moths than grasslands grazed by sheep. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired study) in China and France found that semi-natural grasslands grazed by cattle had a higher abundance of butterflies and burnet moths than grasslands grazed by sheep. The other study found that meadow steppe grazed by cattle, goats or sheep for 1–5 years had a similar abundance of butterflies and moths. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of fen meadows were occupied by marsh fritillary caterpillars whether they were managed by cattle, horse or sheep grazing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3963https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3963Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:38:00 +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