Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Thirty-nine studies (including 13 replicated controlled trials of which three also randomized and four reviews) from eight European countries compared wildlife on uncultivated margins with other margin options. Twenty-four found benefits to some wildlife groups (including 11 replicated controlled trials of which one also randomised, and four reviews). Nineteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK found uncultivated margins support more invertebrates (including bees) and/or higher plant diversity or species richness than conventionally managed field margins or other field margin options. One replicated, controlled study showed that uncultivated margins supported more small mammal species than meadows and farmed grasslands. Four studies (two replicated UK studies, two reviews) reported positive associations between birds and field margins including food provision. A review from the UK found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) benefited plants and some invertebrates. Fifteen studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK found that invertebrate and/or plant species richness or abundance were lower in naturally regenerated than conventionally managed fields or sown margins. Six studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from Belgium, Germany and the UK found uncultivated margins did not have more plant or invertebrate species or individuals than cropped or sown margins. A review found grass margins (including naturally regenerated margins) did not benefit ground beetles. Five studies (including three replicated controlled trials) from Ireland and the UK reported declines in plant species richness and invertebrate numbers in naturally regenerated margins over time. One replicated trial found that older naturally regenerated margins (6-years old) had more invertebrate predators (mainly spiders) than newly established (1-year old) naturally regenerated margins. Five studies (including one replicated, randomized trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found that cutting margins had a negative impact on invertebrates or no impact on plant species. One replicated controlled study found cut margins were used more frequently by yellowhammers when surrounding vegetation was >60 cm tall. Seven studies (including four replicated controlled trials and a review) from Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK reported increased abundance or biomass of weed species in naturally regenerated margins. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F63Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:51:45 +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: Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants One controlled study in Mexico found that installing filters across canals to improve water quality and exclude fish increased weight gain in axolotls. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F771https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F771Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create wetland Fifteen studies investigated the effectiveness of creating wetlands for amphibians. Five site comparison studies (including four replicated studies) in the USA compared created to natural wetlands and found that created wetlands had similar numbers of amphibian species, amphibian abundance or communities depending on depth as natural wetlands. Two of the studies found that created wetlands had fewer amphibian species or lower abundance and different communities compared to natural wetlands. One site comparison study in the USA found that created wetlands had similar numbers of species to adjacent forest. One global review and two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA combined created and restored wetlands and compared them to natural wetlands and found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance was higher or similar, or higher in 54% of studies and similar in 35% of studies reviewed compared to natural wetlands. Three site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that certain amphibian species were only found in created or natural wetlands. One before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred green and golden bell frog tadpoles released into a created wetland did not establish a self-sustaining population. Five studies (including two replicated studies) in Kenya and the USA that investigated colonization of created wetlands found that four to 15 amphibian species used or colonized the wetlands. One global review and three studies (including two replicated studies) in the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and amphibian abundance in created wetlands were affected by wetland design, vegetation, water levels, surrounding habitat, fish presence and distance to source wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F880https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F880Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:16:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create tree plantations on agricultural land Three studies evaluated the effects of creating tree plantations on agricultural land on bat populations. The three studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in the number of bat species in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, site comparison studies in Australia found no difference in bat activity (relative abundance) in agricultural areas with and without plantations of native trees. The other study found higher bat activity in plantations next to remnant native vegetation than in isolated plantations or over grazing land. In all three studies, bat activity was lower in plantations compared to original forest and woodland remnants. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F958Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add manure to the soilCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found higher maize yields in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in two of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar nectarine yields in plots with or without added manure. Crop quality (0 studies) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:57:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before dam construction We found no evidence for the effects of creating/preserving primate habitat on islands before dam construction on primate 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%2F1455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1455Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:04:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect habitat corridors One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of a forest corridor, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect forest patches in highly fragmented landscapes One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of forest along property boundaries and across cleared areas, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:01:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create spaces for roosting bats in road/railway bridges and culverts One study evaluated the effects of creating spaces for roosting bats in road bridges. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One review in the USA found that spaces created in road bridges for roosting bats to replace those lost during bridge works were recolonized by bats in similar or greater numbers to the original roosts at four of eight sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1967https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1967Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:07:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365Tue, 26 May 2020 15:55:26 +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 subtidal artificial structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating small ridges or ledges on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. This means we did not find any studies that directly evaluated this intervention during our literature 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%2F3444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3444Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:00:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create textured surfaces (≤1 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were on open coastlines in Italy and Israel, and one was in an estuary in eastern USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, while one found no effect. One of the studies also reported that textured surfaces with environementally-sensitive material supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate species that were absent from fibreglass surfaces without texture. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in Italy and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized studies) in Italy, Israel and the USA found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate live cover on structure surfaces. One study found that creating textured surfaces, along with using environmentally-sensitive material, did increase the cover and biomass. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Italy found that creating textured surfaces on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the non-mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3449Tue, 31 Aug 2021 15:40:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating small protrusions on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One controlled study in Japan reported that creating small protrusions on a subtidal artificial structure had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3453Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:06:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create small protrusions (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Both studies were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on the community composition, depending on the site and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, small ridges and pits in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. One of the studies found that varying the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats had mixed effects on species richness, depending on the shore level. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Singapore found that creating small protrusions on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating small protrusions, along with grooves, small ridges and pits, had mixed effects on abundance, depending on the shore level, site, and the size and arrangement of protrusions and other habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3462Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:36:13 +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: Create small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats (≤100 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Two studies examined the effects of creating small adjoining cavities or ‘swimthrough’ habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. One study was on an open coastline in the UK and in an estuary in the Netherlands and one was on an open coastline in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats created on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness in and on the structures. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile invertebrate species richness or diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that creating small swimthrough habitats on intertidal artificial structures increased the mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One replicated study in the UK and the Netherlands found that varying the size and arrangement of small swimthrough habitats altered the invertebrate abundance in and on structures. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3468Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:03:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create suitable habitats to offset habitat lost within development footprint We found no studies that evaluated the effects of creating suitable habitats to offset habitat lost within a development footprint on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F3480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3480Fri, 03 Dec 2021 12:00:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around arable or pasture fields Two studies evaluated the effects of creating uncultivated margins around arable or pasture fields on reptile populations. One study was in Australia and one was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that revegetated linear strips had similar reptile species richness compared to cleared and remnant strips. The study also found that revegetated strips and patches had similar reptile species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that revegetated linear strips had similar reptile abundance compared to cleared and remnant strips. The study also found that revegetated strips and patches had similar reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK found that uncultivated field margins were used by slow worms, common lizards and grass snakes, but not by adders. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3518https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3518Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:37:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create walls or barriers to exclude pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of creating walls or barriers to exclude pollutants. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F3570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3570Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:12:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create young plantations within mature woodland One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating young plantations within mature woodland. This study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that pearl-bordered fritillary and small pearl-bordered fritillary populations were more likely to persist for up to 20 years in woodlands with larger areas of young plantations (or coppicing) than in mature coniferous (both species) or deciduous (pearl-bordered fritillary only) woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3941Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:57:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Sweden, and one was in each of Finland and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (9 studies): Two of five studies (including four replicated, one randomized, one paired, two controlled and two site comparison studies) in Sweden, the UK and Finland, found that uncultivated margins had a lower species richness or diversity of butterflies than margins sown with grasses and non-woody broadleaved plants (forbs) or wildflowers. One other study found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths was higher in permanent uncultivated margins than in sown fallow plots, and the other two found that the species richness of butterflies and moths was similar in uncultivated and sown margins. Three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in the UK and Germany found that uncultivated margins which were not grazed or cut, or were only cut in spring or autumn, had a higher species richness of butterflies than margins which were cut in summer. Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and Germany found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in longer or wider uncultivated margins than in shorter, narrower or conventional width margins. One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Finland found that uncultivated margins had a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields, but the other found that the species richness of butterflies was similar between regenerating margins and cropped field edges. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Sweden found that uncultivated margins had a higher species richness of butterflies and burnet moths if they were located closer to existing grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Six of seven studies (including six replicated, two randomized, four controlled and three site comparison studies) in Sweden, the UK and Finland found that the abundance of butterflies and moths, and of adult but not caterpillar meadow brown, was lower in uncultivated margins than in margins sown with grasses, or grasses and non-woody broadleaved plants (forbs) or wildflowers, or a mixture of grasses and wildflowers. However, one of these studies found that uncultivated margins had similar abundance of butterflies to margins sown with grasses or cereal crop. The other study found that the abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths was higher in permanent uncultivated margins than in sown fallow plots. Two of three replicated, site comparison studies (including two randomized studies) in the UK found that uncultivated margins which were not cut, or were only cut in spring and autumn, had a higher abundance of butterflies, and adult but not caterpillar meadow brown, than margins cut in summer. The other study found that margins which were not cut and grazed had a similar abundance of butterflies to margins which were cut and grazed. Two replicated studies (including one controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Finland found that uncultivated margins had a higher abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields or cropped field edges. One site comparison study in the UK found that the abundance of butterflies in wide uncultivated margins was higher than in conventional margins. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Sweden found that uncultivated margins had a higher abundance of butterflies and burnet moths if they were located closer to existing grassland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3981https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3981Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:06:18 +0100