Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nest sites for solitary beesWe have captured 30 replicated trials of nest boxes for solitary bees in 10 countries, including Europe, North and South America and Asia. Twenty-nine of these trials showed occupancy by bees. Many species of solitary bee readily nest in the boxes, including some species considered endangered in a study on farmland in Germany, oil-collecting species of the genus Centris in South America and a recently discovered species in lowland tropical forest in Costa Rica. One trial in temperate forest in Canada recorded no bees using nest boxes. A set of replicated experiments in Germany estimated that four medium to large European species of solitary bee have a foraging range of 150 to 600 m, so nest boxes must be within this distance of foraging resources. Twenty-three replicated trials have shown nest boxes of cut hollow stems or tubes being occupied by solitary bees. Eleven trials demonstrated occupation of blocks of wood drilled with holes. Two trials in Neotropical secondary forest (one in Brazil, one in Mexico) showed that particular solitary bee species will nest in wooden boxes, without stems or confining walls inside. Two replicated trials have compared reproductive success in different nest box designs. One showed that reed stem and wooden grooved-board nest boxes produced more bees/nest than four other types. Nest boxes with plastic-lined holes, or plastic or paper tubes were much less productive, due to parasitism or mould. The other, a small trial, found nests of the oil-collecting bee Centris analis in Brazil were more productive in cardboard straws placed in drilled wooden holes than in grooved wooden boards stacked together. Three trials on agricultural land, one on a carpenter bee in India, one on a range of species in Germany and one on species of Osmia in the USA, have shown that the number of occupied solitary bee nests can double over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. One small replicated trial compared populations of solitary bees in blueberry fields in the USA with and without nest boxes over three years. The estimated number of foraging Osmia bees had increased in fields with nest boxes, compared to fields without nest boxes. Eleven replicated trials have recorded solitary bees in nest boxes being attacked by parasites or predators. Rates of mortality and parasitism have been measured in 10 studies. Mortality rates range from 13% mortality for cavity-nesting bees and wasps combined in Germany (2% were successfully parasitized), or 2% of bee brood cells attacked in shade coffee and cacao plantations in central Sulawesi, Indonesia, to 36% parasitism and 20% other mortality (56% mortality overall) for the subtropical carpenter bee Xylocopa fenestrata in India. Two replicated trials of the use of drilled wooden nest boxes by bees in California, USA, showed that introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia and introduced European leafcutter bee species use the boxes. In one trial, these introduced species more commonly occupied the boxes than native bees. A small trial tested three soil-filled nest boxes for the mining bee Andrena flavipes in the UK, but they were not occupied.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47Thu, 20 May 2010 07:16:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rear declining bumblebees in captivityWe have captured 22 trials from 13 countries documenting captive rearing of bumblebee colonies by confining mated queens alone (eight trials), with one or more bumblebee workers (seven trials), honey bee workers (one trial), male bumblebee pupae (three trials) or following anaesthetisation with CO2 (four trials). One trial found that over four years of artificial rearing, Bombus terrestris queens gradually decreased in weight. Three trials have tried to rear North American bumblebees now declining or thought to be declining. Two induced spring queens of the half-black bumblebee B. vagans to rear adults in captivity, one trial induced queen yellow-banded bumblebees B. terricola (attempted in all three trials) and red-belted bumblebees B. rufocinctus (only attempted in one trial) to rear adults in captivity. All three trials tried to rear the yellow bumblebee B. fervidus and in all cases the queens laid eggs but the larvae died before becoming adults. One trial found the same pattern for the rusty-patched bumblebee and the American bumblebee B. pensylvanicus. One study reports rearing the large garden bumblebee B. ruderatus, a Biodiversity Action Plan species in the UK. Two trials have reported laboratory rearing of a pocket-making bumblebee, the Neotropical B. atratus. Three replicated trials demonstrated that the pollen diet of captively reared bumblebees influences reproductive success. In one trial, buff-tailed bumblebee B. terrestris colonies fed on freshly frozen pollen produced larger queens that survived better and produced larger colonies themselves than colonies fed on dried, frozen pollen. Two replicated trials demonstrated that B. terrestris workers can produce more offspring when fed types of pollen with a higher protein content. Two replicated experiments showed that an artificial light regime of eight hours light, 16 hours darkness, can reduce the time taken for artificially reared queen B. terrestris to lay eggs, relative to rearing in constant darkness. We have captured two replicated trials examining the effect of different artificial hibernation regimes in B. terrestris. One showed that hibernation of queens at 4-5°C for 45 days enhanced egg-laying and colony formation rates, but hibernated queens produced smaller colonies than non-hibernated queens. The second showed that queens should weigh more than 0.6 g (wet weight) and be hibernated for four months or less to have a good chance of surviving.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F50https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F50Thu, 20 May 2010 20:22:36 +0100Collected 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: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once) A total of 32 individual studies from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects on farmland wildlife of reducing management intensity on permanent grasslands. Twenty-two studies found benefits to some or all wildlife groups studied. Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons and three reviews) found reduced management intensity on permanent grassland benefited plants. Sixteen studies (including eight site comparisons of which four paired and three reviews) found benefits to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including two replicated site comparisons, of which one paired, and a review) found positive effects on some or all birds. Twenty-one studies from six European countries found no clear effects of reducing management intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Seven studies (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) found no clear effect on plants. Ten studies (including four site comparisons and one paired site comparison) found mixed or no effects on some or all invertebrates. Two studies (one review, one site comparison) found invertebrate communities on less intensively managed grasslands were distinct from those on intensively managed grasslands. Four studies (including three site comparisons, of which one paired and two replicated) found no clear effects on bird numbers or species richness. Five studies from four European countries found negative effects of reducing management intensity on plants, invertebrates or birds. Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) found some plant species were lost under extensive management. Two studies (one paired site comparison) found more invertebrates in grasslands with intensive management. One paired site comparison found fewer wading birds on grasslands with reduced management intensity than on conventionally managed grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:11:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage A total of 42 individual studies (including seven replicated, controlled and randomized studies and six reviews) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK investigated the effects of reducing tillage on farmland wildlife. Thirty-four studies (of which 21 were replicated and controlled and seven also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found some positive effects on earthworms, some invertebrates (other than earthworms), weeds or farmland birds, of reducing tillage compared to conventional management. Positive effects included increased biomass, species richness or abundance of earthworms, greater abundance of some invertebrates other than earthworms, increased numbers of some weeds and/or weed species, higher Eurasian skylark nest density, earlier laying date and shorter foraging distances on reduced tillage fields, and greater abundance of some birds - including Eurasian skylark, seed-eating songbirds and gamebirds in late winter on non-inversion or conservation tillage. A review found tillage had negative effects on invertebrate numbers and no-till systems had more invertebrate bird food resources. Twenty-six studies (of which 13 replicated and controlled and three also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found reducing tillage had either negative, no effect or no consistent effects on abundance, biomass, or species richness of some invertebrates (other than earthworms), earthworm abundance, biomass, or species richness, number of different plant species found as seeds, number of some weed species, mammal abundance, some bird species, and one study found bird preferences for conservation tillage fields decreased over time. Two studies found that crop type affected the number of weeds under different tillage regimes. One small replicated trial in the UK compared bird numbers under two different forms of reduced tillage, and found more birds from species that make up the ‘Farmland Bird Index’ on broadcast than non-inversion tillage fields. Two studies looked at the long-term effects of reduced tillage on earthworms (after ten years). One study found higher earthworm biomass under reduced tillage, the other study found earthworm abundance was the same between conventional and reduced tillage plots. Three of the studies mentioned above did not distinguish between the effects of reducing tillage and reduced pesticide and/or fertilizer inputs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:00:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create species-rich, semi-natural grassland Twenty-eight studies monitored the effects on wildlife of restoring species-rich grassland. Of these, 20 from Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (15 replicated of which eight controlled and three also randomized) found restoring species-rich grassland resulted in higher ground beetle abundance, increased plant species richness, farmland bird abundance, pollinating insect density and diversity and earthworm abundance than other types of grassland, or that restored grasslands had similar abundance and species richness of insects to old traditionally managed sites. Seven studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK (five replicated and controlled, two also randomized) found that efforts to restore species-rich grassland had no clear effect on the species richness or abundance of plants, beetles, or the abundance of butterflies and moths. Three replicated studies from Sweden and the UK (one also controlled and two site comparisons) found that restored grassland had a lower diversity and frequency of certain plant species, and attracted fewer foraging queen bumblebees than continuously grazed or unmanaged grasslands. We captured 40 studies (including 19 replicated and controlled studies of which six were also randomized, and six reviews) from nine European countries that found ten different techniques used alone or in combinations were effective for restoring species-rich grassland. Effective techniques included: grazing, introducing plant species, hay spreading and mowing. We found 22 studies from seven European countries that included information on the length of time taken to restore grassland communities (including 16 replicated trials of which nine also controlled and three reviews). Six studies saw positive signs of restoration in less than five years, 11 studies within 10 years and two studies found restoration took more than 10 years. Six studies found limited or slow changes in plant communities following restoration. Two studies from Germany and the UK (one replicated controlled trial) found differences in vegetation between restored and existing species-rich grasslands nine or 60 years after restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F133Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:41:52 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found 34 studies comparing use of set-aside areas with control farmed fields. Two were reviews, none were randomized, replicated, controlled trials. Of these, 20 (from Austria, Finland, Germany and the UK) showed benefits to or higher use by all wildlife groups considered. Twelve (from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the UK) found some species or groups used set-aside more than crops, others did not. Two studies (all from the UK) found no effect, one found an adverse effect of set-aside. Three of the studies, all looking at skylarks, went beyond counting animal or plant numbers and measured reproductive success. Two from the UK found higher nest survival or productivity on set-aside than control fields. One from the UK found lower nest survival on set-aside. Fifteen studies (from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK) monitored wildlife on set-aside fields, or in landscapes with set-aside, without directly comparing with control fields or landscapes. Three looked at set-aside age and found more plants or insects on set-aside more than a year old. Two compared use of different non-crop habitats and found neither insects nor small mammals preferred set-aside. Two showed increased bird numbers on a landscape scale after set-aside was introduced, amongst other interventions. Eight looked at effects of set-aside management such as use of fertilizer and sowing or cutting regimes. A systematic review from the UK found significantly higher densities of farmland birds on fields removed from production and under set-aside designation than on conventionally farmed fields in both winter and summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F156Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:03:54 +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: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Nineteen studies from Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK (including seven replicated controlled studies of which two were randomized, and three reviews), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased arthropod abundance, species richness and diversity. A review found grass margins benefited bumblebees and some other invertebrates but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Nine studies from the UK (including seven replicated studies of which two were controlled, and two reviews) found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) benefits birds, resulting in increased numbers, densities, species richness and foraging time. Seven studies from the Netherlands and the UK (all replicated of which four were controlled and two randomized), found that planting grass buffer strips (some margins floristically-enhanced) increased the cover and species richness of plants. A review found grass margins benefited plants but did not distinguish between the effects of several different margin types. Five studies from Finland and the UK (including two replicated, controlled trials and a review), found that planting grass buffer strips benefits small mammals: including increased activity and numbers. Six studies from the Netherlands and the UK (including three replicated, controlled trials) found that planting grass buffer strips had no clear effect on insect numbers, bird numbers or invertebrate pest populations. A replicated site comparison found sown grassy margins were not the best option for conservation of rare arable plants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F246Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:47:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on pine forests Two studies of the 28 captured (all from the USA) found higher bird species richness in sites with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control or just burning and tree thinning, compared to control sites. Five studies found no differences in species richness or community composition between sites with prescribed burning; prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control; or prescribed burning and tree thinning only, compared to control sites, or those with other management. Eight studies found that some species or guilds (such as open habitat species) were more abundant or more likely to be found in burned areas of pine forest than control areas. One study found that the responses of Henslow’s sparrows to burning varied considerably with geography and habitat. Three studies found that some species were more abundant in thinned and burned stands, compared to controls or other management. Three studies found that overall bird densities or abundances of red-cockaded woodpeckers were higher in open pine forests with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control, compared with control areas or those thinned but not burned. One found differences were more marked in spring. A study found that a red-cockaded woodpecker population increased following the start of intensive management consisting of prescribed burning and other interventions. Ten studies found that total bird densities or those of some species was the same or lower in sites with prescribed burning compared to control sites, or those with other management. Five studies investigated several interventions at once. Generally, closed-forest species and ground nesters appeared to be adversely affected by burning. Three studies found higher productivities or survival of species in burned or burned and thinned areas, compared to control areas or those burned less recently. Seven studies found no differences in productivity, behaviour or survival (including of artificial nests) in burned areas or burned and thinned areas, compared to controls. One study found that northern bobwhite chicks had lower foraging success in burned areas, compared to other management regimes, whilst another found that different predators were dominant under different management. The three studies that investigated it found that burning season did not appear to affect the effects of burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:02:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grasslands Of 23 studies found, three from the USA, Canada and Iceland found that species richness on restored grassland sites was similar to remnant habitats or higher than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomised study from the USA found that bird diversity was lower on restored grassland sites compared to hayfields or pastures, whilst a small American study found that species richness declined at one of two fields restored to grassland from croplands. Three studies from the USA found that target species used restored grasslands. Two studies from the USA found that CRP fields held disproportionate proportions of total bird populations, or that local population trends were correlated with the amount of CRP land in the area. Six studies from the USA and UK found that the abundances or densities of some, or all, species were higher on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, or were comparable to natural habitats. Two studies found lower abundances of species on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, although the authors of one suggest that drought conditions may have confounded the results. Five studies from the USA found that at least some bird species in restored areas of grassland had higher productivities than birds in unrestored areas; similar or higher productivies than natural habitats; or had high enough productivities to sustain populations. Three studies found that productivities were lower in restored areas than unrestored, or that productivities on restored sites were too low to sustain populations. A replicated study from the USA found that older CRP fields held more nests, but fewer species than young fields. Two replicated American studies found no differences in species richness or abundances between CRP fields and riparian filter strips whether they were sown with warm- or cool-season grasses, whilst another found that more grassland specialist species were found on sites sown with non-native species. A replicated study from the USA found no difference in bird densities between sites seeded with redtop grass and those not seeded. A study from Iceland found that very few birds were found on restored sites, unless they were sown with Nootka lupin.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:44:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips A total of 80 individual studies have in some way investigated the effects of flowering strips on biodiversity. Sixty-four individual studies show some benefits to one or more wildlife groups. Sixty-five individual studies reported the effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Of these, fifty reported positive effects. Forty-one studies from eight European countries (including five reviews and twenty-three replicated controlled studies, of which one randomized and two site comparisons) found evidence that flower strips had a positive influence on invertebrate numbers with increased abundance, species richness/diversity, or both. Ten studies (nine replicated of which two controlled) found invertebrates visited or foraged on flower strips but did not specify increases/decreases in numbers. Two studies found effects on ground beetles other than changes in numbers. One replicated controlled study showed that ground beetles were more active or had enhanced feeding/reproductive conditions in flower strips. A review found flower strips supported ground beetle species that were rarely found in crops. Fifteen studies reported mixed or negative effects of flower strips on invertebrates. Six studies found no significant effects. Twenty-one studies looked at the effects of flower strips on plants. Sixteen studies from seven European countries (including ten replicated controlled studies of which one randomized) found evidence that flower strips had higher plant cover, number of flowers, diversity, and species richness. One review found flower strips benefited plants but did not specify how. Four studies found negative or no effects of flower strips on the number or diversity of plant species. Five studies described the effects of different margin establishment or management techniques on plants. Seven studies investigated birds and wildflower strips. Four replicated, controlled studies from Switzerland and the UK (two of which were randomized) and one review of European studies found evidence that plots sown with a wildflower or legume seed mix had a positive influence on birds. Flower strips attracted more birds or bird species and the number of birds using flower strips increased over time. Eurasian skylarks preferentially foraged in, and nested in or near, sown weed patches and were less likely to abandon their territories when they included sown weed patches. However one replicated trial in Switzerland found barn owls avoided sown wildflower areas. Two winter recording periods of the same replicated, controlled study in the UK found there were not more bird species or individuals on wildflower plots compared to control margins. All five studies investigating the effects of wildflower strips on small mammals (four replicated studies from Switzerland and one review of studies from north-western Europe) found evidence that small mammals benefit from strips sown with wildflowers or flowers rich in pollen and nectar, with increases in abundance, density and species richness. One replicated study from Switzerland reported that most common vole home ranges and core regions of their territories were found within a wildflower strip. Nineteen studies (of which eight replicated, controlled) reported positive effects on biodiversity of sowing specific plant species including phacelia, and/or other plant species such as borage and red clover. Three replicated studies (two also controlled) found negative impacts or no effects on biodiversity of sowing phacelia. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F442Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for wildfowl Six studies from North America and Europe found that wildfowl populations increased with the provision of artificial nests, although one study from Finland found that there was no increase in the number of broods or chicks in areas with nest boxes. Twelve studies from North America investigated the success of nests in artificial nests with nine finding that success and productivity was high, sometimes higher than or similar to natural nests. Two studies found that success for some species in nest boxes was lower than for natural nests. Two studies investigated the impact of nest box location, finding that hidden nests had higher success and that nests over water were more successful than those in trees over land. Nineteen studies from across the world investigated occupancy rates of artificial nests, finding that rates varied from no use of 25 nest boxes in a single site in Indonesia to 100% occupancy across 20 sites in the USA with one study finding that nest boxes were used more than natural cavities. Two studies found that occupancy rates increased over time, whilst four studies found that occupancy rates appeared to be affected by design or positioning. Three studies from North America found that nest boxes could have other impacts on reproduction and behaviour, with common starlings Sturna vulgaris (a nest site competitor) avoiding some nest box designs; hidden nest boxes having lower intra-specific nest parasitism than easily visible boxes and female common eiders Somateria mollissima losing less weight over incubation if they were nesting in shelters, compared to birds nesting in the open, although they lost weight quicker after nesting.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F482Sat, 01 Sep 2012 14:23:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds Only three studies out of 66 from across the world found low rates of nest box occupancy, although this may be partially the result of publishing biases. Thrushes, crows, swallows and New World warblers were the target species with low rates of use. Thrushes, crows, finches, swallows, wrens, tits, Old World and tyrant flycatchers, New World blackbirds, sparrows, waxbills, starlings and ovenbirds all used nest boxes. One study from the USA found that wrens used nest boxes more frequently than natural cavities. Five studies from across the world found higher population densities or population growth rates in areas with nest boxes, whilst one study from the USA found higher species richness in areas with nest boxes. One study from Chile found that breeding populations (but not non-breeding populations) were higher for two species when next boxes were provided. Twelve studies from across the world found that productivity of birds in nest boxes was higher or similar to those in natural nests. One study found there were more nesting attempts in areas with more nest boxes, although a study from Canada found no differences in behaviour or productivity between areas with high or low densities of nest boxes. Two studies from Europe found lower predation of some species using nest boxes. However, three studies from the USA found low production in nest boxes, either in absolute terms or relative to natural nests. Thirteen studies from across the world founds that use, productivity or usurpation varied with nest box design, whilst seven found no difference in occupation rates or success with different designs. Similarly, fourteen studies found different occupation or success rates depending on the position or orientation of artificial nest sites. Two studies found no difference in success with different positions.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F498Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:52:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success Two studies from the USA found evidence for higher population densities of magpies and American blackbirds in areas provided with supplementary food, whilst two studies from the UK and Canada found that population densities did not appear to be affected by feeding. Twelve studies from across the world found that breeding productivity was higher for fed birds than controls. The increases were through higher hatching or fledging rates, or higher chick survival or recruitment rates. One study from the USA found that these increases were only found in dry years. Eleven studies from Europe and the USA found that fed birds had no higher, or even lower breeding productivity or chick survival than control birds. Nine studies from Europe and North America found that the eggs of fed birds were larger or heavier, or that the chicks of fed birds were in better physical condition: being larger, heavier, faster growing, more symmetrical or having a better immune response. In one study this was only true in a heavily polluted site. However, eight studies from across the world found no evidence for better condition or increased size in the eggs or chicks of fed birds. Six studies from across the world found that food-supplemented pairs laid larger clutches than unfed birds, whilst 14 studies from Europe and North America found that fed birds did not lay larger clutches, or even laid smaller ones. Fifteen studies from across the world found that birds supplied with supplementary food began nesting or laying earlier than controls, although in two studies this was only true for young females or in one of two habitats. In one study, a high fat, high protein diet had a greater effect on laying date than a high fat, low protein diet.­ One study found that fed birds had shorter incubations than controls whilst another found that fed birds re-nested quicker than controls and had shorter second incubations. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that fed birds did not lay any earlier than controls. Seven studies from across the world found that fed parent birds showed positive behavioural responses to feeding, such as being more likely to re-nest, less likely to be parasitized or  showing better anti-predator responses, spending more time incubating or building larger nests. Three studies from across the world found neutral or negative responses to feeding, including being more likely to be invaded by conspecifics, making no more breeding attempts or showing no preference for fed nest boxes compared to controls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase adult survival Seven studies from Europe and the USA found higher densities or larger populations in various songbird species in areas close to supplementary food. Six studies from Europe, Canada and Japan found that population trends or densities in some species were no different between fed and unfed areas. The American study found that populations appeared to follow food, with populations increasing after feeders were erected and decreasing after they were removed. Four studies from Canada, Europe, Japan and the USA found that birds had higher survival when supplied with supplementary food. However, in two studies this was only apparent in females or in one of two species studied. A controlled study in the USA found no evidence that birds were dependent on supplementary food: when food was removed, previously fed birds did not have lower survival than controls. A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that song sparrows Melospiza melodia had lower survival with feeding stations in their territories. Six studies from Europe and the USA found that birds supplied with supplementary food were in better physical condition or had larger fat supplies than unfed birds. However, in one replicated, controlled study this was only the case for females; in another two, only one of three species showed better condition, with one species in one study showing lower condition when fed; a final replicated and controlled study found that differences between treatments were only apparent in the breeding season. Two studies investigated the effect of feeding on behaviours: a randomised, replicated and controlled study in the USA found that male Carolina wrens Thryothorus ludovicianus spent more time singing when supplied with food; a replicated, controlled study in Sweden found no behavioural differences between wood nuthatches Sitta europaea supplied with food, and unfed birds. Thirteen studies from the UK, Canada and the USA investigated use of feeders. Four studies from the USA and the UK found high use of supplementary food by several species, with up to 21% of birds’ daily energy needs coming from feeders. However, another UK study found very low use of food, possibly because the feeder was not positioned close to natural food sources. One UK study found that use of feeders peaked in midwinter, although another found that the exact timing of peak use varied between species. Two replicated trials from the UK finding that the use of feeders increased with distance to houses and decreased with distance to cover, whilst a replicated Candadian study found that American goldfinches Carduelis tristis preferred using bird feeders in high positions. A large-scale replicated study in the UK found that preferences for feeder locations varied between species. Three studies from the UK argue that placing feeders over 1 km apart, and possibly 1.1–1.3 km apart will maximise their use whilst keeping the intervention practical.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F552Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:27:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture Thirty individual studies investigated the effects on birds of sowing wild bird seed or cover mixture, 21 studies found positive effects. Fourteen studies from the UK (including one systematic review and nine replicated controlled trials of which four randomized, and three reviews) found that fields sown with wild bird cover mix had higher abundance, density, species diversity and species richness of birds than other farmland habitats. Six studies from the UK (including one review and two replicated studies) found that birds showed a preference for wild bird cover and used it significantly more than other habitats. One review found the grey partridge population increased substantially on farms where conservation measures including cover crops were in place. Nine replicated studies from France and the UK reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on birds compared to other farmland habitats. Six studies found that mixtures including kale or a mixture of kale and/or other species attracted the largest number of bird species or highest bird abundance. Twelve studies from the UK looked at the effects of wild bird cover strips on invertebrates. Seven studies from the UK (including one review and four replicated controlled studies of which two were also randomized) found positive effects. Farmland habitats sown with wild bird cover mix were used more by butterflies, and had a higher abundance or species richness of butterflies and/or bees than other farmland habitats. One review found wild bird cover benefited invertebrates. Four studies (including one review and two replicated trials) reported mixed or negative effects of wild bird cover on invertebrate numbers compared with other farmland habitats. One study found that bees and butterflies showed preferences for particular plant species. Eight studies from the UK looked at plants and wild bird cover. Six studies (including two reviews and two replicated controlled trials) found that planting wild bird cover mix was one of the three best options for conservation of annual herbaceous plant communities, benefited plants and resulted in increased plant diversity and species richness. However two replicated studies (of which one a site comparison) found mixed/negative effects for plant species richness. One replicated trial from the UK found that small mammal activity was higher in wild bird cover than in the crop in winter but not in summer.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F594Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:56:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for birds or mammals A total of 18 individual studies investigated the effects of providing supplementary food. Nine studies from France, Sweden and the UK (six replicated studies, of which five controlled and one also randomized and paired) found that the provision of supplementary food increased farmland bird abundance, breeding population size, density, body mass, hatching, nestling growth and fledging rates, increased overwinter survival of a declining house sparrow population and that fed male hen harriers bred with more females than control birds. Two studies did not separate the effects of several other interventions carried out on the same study site. Four studies from the UK and Finland (three replicated studies, of which one controlled and one randomized) found that farmland songbirds and field voles (field voles on unmown plots only) used supplementary food when provided, including the majority of targeted species such as tree sparrow, yellowhammer and corn bunting. Five replicated studies from the UK (of which two also controlled) found that the provision of supplementary food had no clear effect on farmland bird breeding abundance, European turtle dove reproductive success, territory size or territory density, overwinter survival of three stable house sparrow populations, tree sparrow nest box use, or the abundance of weed seeds on the soil surface. One replicated, controlled study from Sweden found no effect of supplementary food provision on common starling clutch size or nestling weight, and lower fledging rates in nests which received supplementary food compared to nests without supplementary food in one year. Four studies from the UK (two replicated of which one was also randomized and controlled) found that the use of supplementary food by farmland birds varied between species and region, depended upon the time of year and proximity to other feeding stations and natural feeding areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F648Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:20:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create beetle banks Fourteen reports from eight studies out of a total 24 reports from 12 individual studies (including eight replicated studies of which three controlled and four literature reviews) from Denmark and the UK found that beetle banks provide some benefits to farmland biodiversity. Sixteen reports from eight individual studies looked at invertebrates and beetle banks. Five reports from two replicated studies (of which one controlled) and a review found positive effects on invertebrate densities/numbers, distribution, or higher ground beetle density and species diversity in spring and summer but not winter. Six reports from three replicated studies (of which one randomized and controlled) found that invertebrate numbers varied between specific grass species sown on beetle banks. Two replicated studies (one paired and controlled) found that the effect of beetle banks varied between invertebrate groups or families. Five replicated studies (of which two controlled) found lower or no difference in invertebrate densities or numbers on beetle banks relative to other habitats. One review found lesser marsh grasshopper did not forage on two plant species commonly sown in beetle banks. Six studies looked at birds and beetle banks. Two reviews and one replicated controlled trial found positive effects on bird numbers (in combination with other farmland conservation measures) or evidence that birds used beetle banks. Two studies (one replicated site comparison) found mixed effects on birds. One replicated study found no farmland bird species were associated with beetle banks. One replicated, paired, controlled study and a review looked at the effects of beetle banks on plants and found either lower plant species richness on beetle banks in summer, or that grass margins including beetle banks were generally beneficial to plants but these effects were not pronounced on beetle banks. One controlled study and a review found beetle banks acted as nest sites for harvest mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F651Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:24:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Twenty-two studies from 14 replicated, controlled experiments (of which two randomized) including two reviews, from a total of 32 studies from 20 experiments (of which 17 replicated, controlled) including three reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated species richness and diversity of farmland wildlife found that conservation headlands contained higher species richness or diversity of invertebrates or plants than other habitat types. Twelve studies (including a review) from ten replicated experiments (of which eight controlled and three controlled and randomized) found that some or all invertebrates or plants investigated did not have higher species richness or diversity on conservation headlands compared to other habitat types. This included both replicated, controlled studies investigating bee diversity. Two replicated studies from the UK found that unfertilized conservation headlands had more plant species than fertilized conservation headlands. Positive effects of conservation headlands on abundances or behaviours of some or all species investigated were found by 27 studies from 15 replicated experiments (of which 13 controlled) including five reviews out of a total of 36 studies from 20 experiments (17 replicated, controlled) including five reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated birds (some studies looked at number of visits), mammals (some studies looked at number of visits), invertebrates and plant abundance/cover. One review from the UK found a positive effect on grey partridge populations but did not separate the effects of several other interventions including conservation headlands. Nineteen studies from 13 replicated (12 controlled) experiments and a review from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK found that some or all species of birds, invertebrates or plants investigated were at similar, or lower, abundances on conservation headlands compared to other management. One review from the UK and a study in Germany found conservation headlands had a positive effect on plants and some, but not all invertebrates, or rare arable weeds but did not specify how. All eight studies from the UK and Sweden that investigated species’ productivity, from three replicated (two controlled) experiments including two reviews found that grey partridge productivity or survival was higher in conservation headlands (or in sites with conservation headlands), compared to other management. One replicated study from the UK found that conservation headlands did not increase the proportion of young grey partridges in the population. A before-and-after study from the UK found that some invertebrates in conservation headlands survived pesticide applications to neighbouring fields. A review found crop margins reduce the effects of spray drift on butterflies. A replicated study from Germany and a review found that conservation headlands appeared to prevent or reduce the establishment and spread of pernicious weeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:36:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the cost of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes) Twenty-six studies from four European countries (including one UK systematic review and three European reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on birds. Twenty-four studies (including one systematic review, six site comparisons and nine reviews) found increases in population size, density or more favourable population trends of some or all birds studied on sites with agri-environment schemes compared to non-scheme sites (some of these differences were seasonal). Eleven studies (including one systematic review and four reviews) found negative or no effects. One UK study found higher numbers of some birds where higher tier management was in place, another UK study found no difference between Entry Level or Higher Level Stewardship Scheme fields. One study from the Netherlands found that not all agri-environment scheme agreements were sited in ideal locations for black-tailed godwit. Eleven studies from five European countries (including three replicated paired site comparisons and two reviews) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on plants. Seven studies (including three replicated paired site comparisons and one European review) found agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on plants, plant diversity or species richness. Three studies found increases in plant species richness in areas with agri-environment schemes, two found decreases. A replicated site comparison study from Estonia found higher flower abundance on farms with agri-environment schemes in two out of four areas. A review found Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England had contributed to halting the loss of semi-natural grassland habitats but were less effective at enhancing or restoring grassland biodiversity. Ten studies from three European countries (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on invertebrates. Six studies (including two replicated site comparisons) showed agri-environment schemes maintained or had little or no effect on some invertebrates in terms of diversity, abundance, species richness or bee colony growth. Five studies found increases in abundance or species richness of some invertebrates. A UK study found agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a local but not a landscape-scale effect on bee numbers. Four studies (including two replicated site comparisons and a review) from the UK looked at the effects of agri-environment schemes on mammals. One study found positive effects, three studies found mixed effects in different regions or for different species. Three of the studies above found higher numbers of wildlife on land before agri-environment schemes were introduced. However two studies collecting baseline data found no difference in the overall number of birds or earthworms and soil microorganisms between areas with and without agri-environment schemes. A review found two out of three agri-environment schemes in Europe benefited wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F700Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:38:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock) Of 27 individual studies (including 10 replicated, controlled trials, four reviews and one systematic review) from France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, 15 (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from four countries found benefits to birds, plants or invertebrates in response to reducing grazing intensity on permanent grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock). Of these 15 studies, six (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year increased the abundance and diversity of plants (Tallowin et al. 2005, Marriott et al. 2009), frequency of certain plant species, invertebrate diversity, usage by geese and the number of northern lapwing and common redshank. Six studies (including three replicated controlled trials of which two randomized) found that excluding or delaying summer grazing increased plant species diversity, invertebrate abundance and benefited breeding Eurasian skylark. A review found a study that showed that removing autumn grazing after a silage cut increased the winter abundance of seed-eating birds. A review and a replicated controlled study from the UK found that reduced grazing intensity or seasonal removal of livestock increased the number of invertebrates, plant seed heads and foraging skylark, and that some bird species preferred plots with seasonal removal of livestock. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates from reduced grazing intensity. One randomized, replicated controlled trial excluded grazing in autumn/winter and another study excluded grazing in the summer. A further study found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year did not increase plant diversity. Nine studies from France, Germany and the UK reported mixed results for some or all species or wildlife groups considered (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial and two reviews and a systematic review). Of these, eight studies found that reduced grazing intensity throughout the year benefited some species but not others, one found that the impact depended on the type of vegetation grazed, and one found benefits to bee and wasp abundance but not species richness. One study found that the response of birds to removal of summer grazing varied between functional groups and depended on time of year. A UK review found that reduced grazing benefited invertebrates, plants, rodents and some but not all birds. A systematic review of the effects of grazing intensity on meadow pasture concluded that intermediate levels of grazing are usually optimal for plants, invertebrates and birds but that trade-offs are likely to exist between the requirements of different taxa.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding frogs Thirty-three studies investigated the success of breeding frogs in captivity. Twenty-three of 33 studies, three of which were reviews and 30 replicated studies, across the world found that amphibians produced egg in captivity, in four cases by captive-bred females. Seven found mixed results, with some species of frogs or 17–50% of captive populations  reproducing successfully in captivity, but with other species difficult to maintain or raise to adults. One found that frogs did not breed successfully in captivity and another that all breeding frogs died. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. One found that froglet survival was low and another that three species were not successfully raised to adulthood. Four replicated studies (including one small study) in,Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults was 50–90% in captivity. One review and four replicated studies (including two small studies) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that reproductive success of frogs in captivity depended on temperature or a simulated wet and dry season, but not on whether frogs were housed in high or low maintenance facilities. Three replicated studies (including one small study) in Germany, Australia and Canada found that egg or tadpole development in captivity was affected by parental care, density or temperature.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:25:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for amphibians Twenty-eight studies investigated the colonization of created ponds by amphibians in general (rather than by targeted species, which are discussed below). All of the studies found that amphibians used some or all created ponds. Nine site comparison studies (including seven replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Spain, the UK and USA compared amphibian numbers in created and natural ponds. Five found that numbers of species or breeding species were similar or higher in created ponds, and numbers of ponds colonized were similar. Four found that species composition differed, and comparisons between abundance of individual species, juvenile productivity and size at metamorphosis differed depending on species. One found that numbers of species were similar or lower depending on the permanence of created water bodies. One found that populations in created ponds were less stable. One review and two replicated, before-and-after studies in Denmark and the USA found that amphibians established stable populations in 50–100% of created ponds. Six replicated studies (including one randomized study) in France, the Netherlands, UK and USA found that amphibians used 64–100% and reproduced in 64–68% of created ponds, or used 8–100% and reproduced in 2–62% depending on species. One review and 15 studies (including 12 replicated studies, one of which was randomized) in Europe and the USA found that created ponds were used or colonized by up to 15 naturally colonizing species, up to 10 species that reproduced, as well as by captive-bred amphibians. Five replicated studies (including three site comparison studies) in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and the USA found that pond creation, and restoration in three cases, maintained and increased amphibian populations or increased numbers of species. Seven studies (including one review) in Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and USA found that use or colonization of or reproductive success in created ponds was affected by pond age, permanence, vegetation cover, surrounding landscape, distance to existing ponds and presence of fish.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:16:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Head-start amphibians for release Twenty-two studies head-started amphibians from eggs and monitored them after release. Six of 10 studies (including five replicated studies) in Denmark, Spain, the UK and USA and a global review found that released head-started tadpoles, metamorphs or juveniles established breeding frog populations or increased populations of frogs or toads. Two found mixed results with breeding populations established in 12 of 17 studies reviewed or at two of four sites. Two found that head-started metamorphs or adults did not prevent a frog population decline or establish a breeding toad population. For five of the studies, release of captive-bred individuals, translocation or habitat management were also carried out. Nine of 10 studies (including nine replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA found that head-started amphibians released as tadpoles, metamorphs or adults metamorphosed successfully, tended to survive the first season, winter or year or bred successfully. One found adult survival was 1–17% over four years and one found limited breeding following the release of adults. Four replicated studies in Australia, the UK and USA found that frog survival to metamorphosis and size at metamorphosis was greater and time to metamorphosis shorter in head-started compared to wild animals. One replicated study in Canada found that young head-started leopard frogs were smaller than those in the wild. One replicated study in Australia found that corroboree frog tadpoles released earlier had higher survival, but metamorphosed two weeks later than those released a month later. Three studies (including one replicated study) in the USA only provided results for head-starting in captivity. Two found that Houston toad eggs could be captive-reared to tadpoles, but only one successfully reared adults. Three studies (including two replicated studies) in Canada and the USA found that during head-starting, amphibian growth rate, size, stress levels and survival was affected by the amount of protein provided, housing density or enclosure location. One found that mass, stress levels and survival were not affected by the amount of food or habitat complexity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F881https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F881Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:02:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings Thirty-two studies investigated the effectiveness of installing culverts or tunnels as road crossings for amphibians. Six of seven studies (including three replicated studies) in Canada, Germany, Italy, Hungary and the USA found that installing culverts or tunnels significantly decreased amphibian road deaths; in one study this was the case only when barrier fencing was also installed. One found no effect on road deaths. Fifteen of 24 studies (including one review and 17 replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA found that culverts/tunnels were used by amphibians, by 15–85% of amphibians or 3–15 species, or that 23–100% of culverts or tunnels were used by amphibians or used in 12 of 14 studies reviewed. The majority of culverts/tunnels had barrier fencing to guide amphibians to entrances. Four found mixed effects depending on species, or for toads depending on the site or culvert type. Five found that culverts were used by less than 10% of amphibians or were not used. The use of culverts/tunnels was affected by diameter in three of six studies, with wider culverts used more, length in one of two studies, with long culverts avoided, lighting in all three studies, with mixed effects, substrate in three of six studies, with natural substrates used more, presence of water in two of three studies, with mixed effects, entrance location in one and tunnel climate in one study. Six studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and USA investigated the use of culverts with flowing water and found that they were used by amphibians, or rarely used by salamanders or not used, and were used more or the same amount as dry culverts. Certain culvert designs were not suitable for amphibians; one-way tunnels with vertical entry chutes resulted in high mortality of common toads and condensation deposits from steel culverts had very high metal concentrations. One study found that thousands of amphibians were still killed on the road.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:20:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change tillage practicesBiodiversity loss: Eleven studies from Canada, Europe, Mexico, or the USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil animals or microbes. Of these, four (including three replicated trials (three also randomized and one also controlled)) found more microbes, more species of earthworm, or higher microbe activity under reduced tillage. One replicated trial found increased numbers of soil animals and earthworms under reduced tillage. One controlled, replicated trial found mixed effects on microbe diversity depending on time of sampling. Two, (including one controlled, replicated trial) found no effect of reduced tillage on earthworm activity or microbe activity. Compaction: Five studies from Australia, Canada, and Europe measured the effect of controlled traffic and reduced tillage on compacted soils. Of these, two (including one before-and-after trial and one replicated trial) found reduced compaction and subsequent effects (reduced water runoff, for example) under controlled traffic, and one also found that crop yields increased under no-tillage. Three replicated trials, including one site comparison study, found higher compaction under reduced tillage. Drought: Three replicated trials from Europe and India (one also randomized) found the size of soil cracks decreased, and ability of soil to absorb water and soil water content increased with conventional ploughing and sub-soiling. Erosion: Nine replicated trials from Brazil, Europe, India, Nigeria and the USA, and one review showed mixed results of tillage on soil erosion. Seven trials (one also controlled and randomized) showed reduced soil loss and runoff under reduced tillage compared to conventional ploughing. One trial showed no differences between tillage systems, but demonstrated that across-slope cultivation reduced soil loss compared to up-and-downslope cultivation. Two trials showed that no-tillage increased soil loss in the absence of crop cover. Soil organic carbon: Twelve studies from Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and the USA compared the effect of no-tillage and conventionally tilled systems on soil organic carbon. All (including two randomized, five replicated, two randomized, replicated, and one controlled, randomized, replicated) found higher soil organic carbon in soils under a no-tillage or reduced tillage system compared to conventionally tilled soil. One review showed that no-tillage with cover cropping and manure application increases soil organic carbon. One randomized, replicated trial from Spain found greater soil organic carbon in conventionally tilled soil. One replicated trial from Canada found no effect of tillage on soil carbon. Soil organic matter: Fifteen studies from Canada, China, Europe, Morocco, and the USA measured effects of reduced tillage on soil organic matter content and nutrient retention. Of these, eight studies (including four replicated (two also randomized), two site comparisons (one also replicated) and one controlled) found maintained or increased soil organic matter and improved soil structure under reduced tillage. Four trials (including two replicated and two site comparison studies) found higher nutrient retention under reduced tillage. One controlled, replicated trial found less carbon and nitrate in no-till compared to conventionally tilled soil, but conventionally tilled soil lost more carbon and nitrate. One controlled, randomized, replicated trial and one replicated trial found mixed effects of reduced tillage on soil nitrogen levels. Yield: One replicated study from Canada found lower yields under minimum or no-tillage compared to conventional tillage, and one controlled, randomized, replicated study from the USA found higher yields when subsoiling was done. One randomized, replicated study from Portugal found no effect of tillage treatment on yield.   SOIL TYPES COVERED: anthrosol, calcareous silt loam, chalky, clay, clay loam, fine sandy loam, loam, loamy-clay, loam - sandy loam, loam – silt-loam, loamy sand, loamy silt, non-chalky clay, sandy, sandy clay loam, sandy loam, sandy silt-loam, silt loam, silty, silty-clay, silty clay loam, silty loam.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F906Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:37:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Forty-four studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting bats on bat populations. Twenty-seven studies were in Europe, nine studies were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in South America, and one study was a worldwide review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (44 STUDIES) Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10 years after installation. Use (43 studies): Forty-one of 43 studies (including 34 replicated studies and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found that bats used bat boxes installed in forest or woodland, forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas and buildings, bridges, underpasses or unknown habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or 12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe, North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity roosts. Twenty-two studies (including 17 replicated studies, one before-and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%). OTHER (23 STUDIES) Bat box design (16 studies): Three studies in Germany, Portugal and Australia found that bats used black bat boxes more than grey, white or wooden boxes. One of two studies in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes. One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat boxes. Four studies in the USA, UK, Spain and Australia found bats selecting four of nine, three of five, three of four and one of five bat box designs. One study in the UK found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts. Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior to installing bat boxes. One review in the UK found that bat boxes were more likely to be occupied when a greater number of bat boxes were installed across a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants Seventeen of 25 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Spain and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect or mixed effects. One study found a decrease in the abundance of herbaceous species. Thirteen of 19 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Canada, Sweden, the USA and West Africa found that thinning trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211Fri, 20 May 2016 08:24:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire: effect on understory plants Eight of 22 studies (including seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from the USA, Australia and Canada found that prescribed fire increased the cover, density and biomass of understory plants. Six of the studies found it decreased plant cover. Eight found no effect or mixed effects on cover and density of understory plants. Fourteen of 24 studies (including ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from the USA, Australia, France and West Africa found that prescribed fire increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found that it decreased species richness.  Nine found no effect or mixed effects on species richness and diversity of understory plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1221Mon, 23 May 2016 08:21:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use clearcutting to increase understory diversity Eight of 12 studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, spain and the USA found that clearcutting increased the cover and species richness of understory plants. Two found it decreased the density and species richness, and two found no effect or mixed effects. Three of six studies (including five replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Brazil, Canada and Spain found that clearcutting increased the density and species richness of young trees. One found it decreased new tree density and two found no effect or mixed effects depending on the tree species. Three of nine studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Australia, Brazil4, Canada, Japan and the USA found that clearcutting decreased density, species richness and diversity of mature trees. One study found it increased trees species richness .Six studies found no effect or mixed effects on tree density, size and species richness and diversity.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1222Mon, 23 May 2016 08:58:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsOrganic matter (12 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean-type climates and ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter (mostly measured as carbon) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in organic matter in soils with or without winter cover crops (sometimes more, sometimes less). Nutrients (22 studies) Nitrogen (21 studies): Ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops (but see the paragraphs, below, for distinctions between different forms of nitrogen). Phosphorus (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without winter cover crops. Potassium (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from the USA found an increase in potassium in soils with winter cover crops, and no increase in soils without them. Soil organisms (12 studies) Microbial biomass (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbial biomass (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found a higher ratio of bacteria-feeding nematodes to fungus-feeding nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them. Earthworms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more earthworms in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of earthworms in soils with or without winter cover crops. Bacteria and fungi (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria and fungi in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more spores and species of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies) Soil erosion (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from Israel and the USA found less erosion of soils with cover crops, compared to soils with fallows or bare soils. Soil aggregation (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more water-stable soil aggregates in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (5 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Carbon storage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more carbon accumulation in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Nitrous oxide (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops or fallows. Implementation options (9 studies): Five studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with different cover crops. One study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus or microbial biomass between soils with different cover crops. One study from Italy found differences in beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found higher soil quality in plots with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:10:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsCrop yield (24 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Spain and the USA found lower cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Eight replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without cover crops. Seven controlled studies (six replicated, four randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without summer cover crops. Crop quality (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from the USA found some differences in tomato quality between plots with winter cover crops or fallows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Implementation options (9 studies): Eight studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had legumes as winter cover crops, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had a mixture of legumes and grasses, compared to legumes alone.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:54:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (23 studies) Crops (22 studies): Eight replicated, controlled studies (seven randomized) from Italy and Spain found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Seven replicated, controlled studies (six randomized) from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, and the USA found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized controlled studies from Italy and Spain found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop residues (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent straw yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop quality (6 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less protein in wheat grains from plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found heavier cereal grains in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found other differences in crop quality, but two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA did not.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:10:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (25 studies) Cereals (16 studies): Nine replicated, controlled studies from Egypt, France, Spain, and Turkey found higher cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three of these studies also found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar cereal yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that crops failed in plots with conventional tillage, but not in plots with reduced tillage, in one of three comparisons. Fruits and vegetables (7 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two of these studies also found lower fruit or vegetable yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar fruit yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. All fruit or vegetable plots were irrigated, in contrast to most cereal or legume plots. Legumes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of four comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Lebanon found similar legume yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found higher legume yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Oilseeds (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher rapeseed yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop residues (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found lower straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher straw yields in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher cover crop biomass in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Crop quality (7 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that sunflower seeds had more oil, more monounsaturated fatty acid, and less polyunsaturated fatty acid in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found that wheat had a lower protein content in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Turkey found similar seed weights in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that lettuce or broccoli plants were larger in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons, but they were smaller in other comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found higher wheat yields in plots that were tilled at slower speeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Turkey found higher wheat yields, but lower vetch yields, in plots with one type of reduced tillage (rototilling and disking), compared to another type (double disking).Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1359Fri, 05 May 2017 12:03:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Add compost to the soilOrganic matter (12 studies): Twelve replicated, controlled studies (ten randomized) from Italy, Spain, Syria, Turkey, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Nutrients (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Syria found more nutrients in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen between soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus between soils with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with or without added compost. Soil organisms (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without added compost. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacterial abundance between plots with or without added compost. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found differences in bacteria communities, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Spain found less erosion of soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found that soils with added compost were more stable than soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (10 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more greenhouse gas in soils with added compost, compared to soils without added compost, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found no differences in greenhouse gas between soils with or without added compost. Implementation options (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Syria found more nitrogen in soils with compost added every two years, compared to soils with compost added every four years. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in bacteria abundance between soils with different amounts of added compost.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1362Mon, 08 May 2017 13:08:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicOrganic matter (13 studies): Eight replicated studies (including one meta-analysis) from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nutrients (14 studies) Nitrogen (9 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found more nitrogen in soils with organic fertilizers, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Ammonium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more ammonium in soils with organic fertilizer, compared inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of ammonium in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nitrate (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less nitrate in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found similar amounts of nitrate in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more phosphorus in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison from France found less phosphorous in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorous in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Potassium (6 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found more potassium in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated studies (two controlled, one site comparison) from France and Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. pH (6 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found similar pH levels in soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found higher pH levels in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower pH levels in soils with organic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Soil organisms (7 studies) Microbial biomass (4 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France, Italy, and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Other soil organisms (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer bacteria in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in one comparison. One replicated site comparison from France found fewer nematodes in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer mites in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbes between plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Soil erosion and aggregation (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Turkey and Spain found greater aggregation in soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found no difference in aggregation between soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found higher carbon dioxide emissions from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar carbon dioxide emissions from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Methane (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that more methane was absorbed by soils with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that similar amounts of methane were absorbed by soils with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Nitrous oxide (8 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar nitrous oxide emissions from plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Three studies (including one meta-analysis and two replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from Spain, the USA, and Mediterranean countries found lower nitrous oxide emissions from plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): One study from Spain found that plots with slurry absorbed methane, but plots with manure emitted methane. One study from Italy found more organic matter, nutrients, and microbial biomass in plots fertilized with compost, compared to manure. One meta-analysis found lower nitrous oxide emissions after adding solid organic fertilizer, but not liquid organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer. One study found inconsistent differences in soil bacteria with a single or double application of organic fertilizer.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1366https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1366Tue, 09 May 2017 15:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsOrganic matter (12 studies): Ten studies (eight replicated, randomized, and controlled, and two site comparisons) from Chile, France, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. Two meta-analyses of studies from Mediterranean climates also found more organic matter in plots with ground cover. Implementation options (4 studies): One study from France found more organic matter in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. Two studies from the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One study from Spain found more organic matter where cover crops were incorporated into the soil. Nutrients (12 studies) Nitrogen (9 studies): Five studies (four replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Chile and Spain found more nitrogen in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with ground cover, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen between soils with or without ground cover. One replicated site comparison from France found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without ground cover. Implementation options (5 studies): Two studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes, in some or all comparisons. Two studies from vineyards in the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One of these studies also found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with different types of seeded cover crops, and in soils with or without tillage (both with ground cover). One study from Spain found more nitrogen where cover crops were incorporated into the soil. Phosphorus (4 studies): One replicated site comparison from France found more phosphorus in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils, in one of six comparisons. Two studies (one replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found less phosphorus in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with seeded cover crops and bare soils. Implementation options (3 studies): One study from France found more phosphorus in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. One study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. One study from Spain found different amounts of phosphorus in soils with different types of seeded cover crops. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found more potassium in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to bare soils. Two site comparisons (one replicated) from France and Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with ground cover, compared to tilled or bare soil. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found similar amounts of potassium in soils with resident vegetation or seeded cover crops. pH (4 studies): Two studies (one replicated, randomized, and controlled, and one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found lower pH levels in soils with ground cover, compared to soils without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found higher pH levels in soils with ground cover. One replicated site comparison from France found similar pH levels in soils with or without ground cover. Soil organisms (6 studies) Microbial biomass (4 studies): Four replicated studies (three randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from France and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One study from France found more microbial biomass in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in some comparisons. Fungi (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more symbiotic fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled soils, in some comparisons, but found similar numbers of roots that were colonized by mycorrhizae. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in mycorrhizae in soils with seeded cover crops or tilled soils. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria, but similar levels of bacterial diversity, in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils. Nematodes (1 study): One replicated site comparison from France found more nematodes in soils with ground cover, compared to bare soils. Implementation options (1 study): One study from France found more nematodes in soils with permanent ground cover, compared to temporary ground cover, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (10 studies) Soil erosion (7 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile, Italy, Spain, and the USA found less erosion of soils with ground cover, compared to bare or tilled soils, in some comparisons or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from France found similar amounts of erosion in plots with or without ground cover. Implementation options (1 study): One study from Italy found the least erosion with permanent cover crops, and the most erosion with temporary cover crops. Soil aggregation (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Chile and Spain found that soil aggregates were more water-stable in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to tilled or bare soils, in some or all comparisons. One site comparison from Spain found inconsistent differences in water stability between soils with seeded cover crops and bare soils. Greenhouse gases (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from a vineyard in the USA found more carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to tilled soils. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from an olive orchard in Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to tilled soils. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with different types of ground cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1367Mon, 15 May 2017 14:10:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use no tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (20 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Fourteen replicated studies (eleven randomized and controlled, one controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more organic matter, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without tillage. Nutrients (19 studies) Nitrogen (18 studies): Six replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared soil with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA sometimes found more nitrogen and sometimes found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without tillage. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without tillage. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA sometimes found more potassium and sometimes found less potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with or without tillage. pH (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found lower pH levels in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar pH levels in soils with or without tillage. Soil organisms (18 studies) Microbial biomass (13 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) from Italy and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more microbial biomass, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without tillage. Earthworms (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) from the USA found more earthworms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. However, one of these studies found different communities of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. Mites (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found different communities of mites, but similar numbers of mites, in soils with or without tillage. Other soil organisms (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of denitrifying bacteria in soils with or without tillage. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microorganisms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more fungus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies): Seven replicated studies (six randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found that soils without tillage were more stable than tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soils without tillage were sometimes more stable, and were sometimes less stable, than tilled soils. Greenhouse gases (10 studies) Carbon dioxide (7 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more carbon dioxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without tillage. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more nitrous oxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with or without tillage. Methane (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less methane in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more methane, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with or without tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, compared to a short time, in one comparison. This study also found greater stability in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369Mon, 15 May 2017 14:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (14 studies): One meta-analysis from multiple Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Eleven replicated studies (ten randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, Syria, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found less organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (15 studies) Nitrogen (14 studies): Seven replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three of these studies also found less nitrogen in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, Syria, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Phosphorus (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Potassium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. pH (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar pH levels in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil organisms (16 studies) Microbial biomass (15 studies): Eleven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Syria found less microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more denitrifying bacteria in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Other soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of mites and nematodes, but differences in mite and nematode communities, in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more earthworms in fields with fewer passes of the plough, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies) Soil aggregation (8 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soil aggregates had higher water-stability in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that soil aggregates had lower water-stability in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that water-stability was similar in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more large aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found smaller aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of aggregation in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil erosion (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found less erosion with less tillage (one pass with the tractor, compared to two), but found more erosion with shallower tillage, compared to deeper. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (9 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found less carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Methane (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less soil was lost in runoff water from plots that were tilled at slower tractor speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371Mon, 15 May 2017 14:50:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercoursesAmphibians (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of amphibian species in restored and remnant sites. Birds (8 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found similar numbers of bird species in restored and remnant sites. Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found fewer bird species in restored riparian sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from Spain found similar numbers of birds and bird species in restored contaminated sites and uncontaminated sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that an endangered bird nested in restored sites, and had similar nesting success in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found that bird populations increased with the area of restored habitat in the landscape, in some comparisons. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar levels of nest parasitism in restored and remnant sites. Fish (1 study): One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found differences in fish communities, before and after changing river flow. Invertebrates (3 studies): One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer native ants, but similar numbers of invasive ants, in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One before-and-after site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of freshwater invertebrates in restored and reference sites, after restoration. One replicated, before-and-after study from the USA found more invertebrates and invertebrate species in plots with added gravel, compared to plots without added gravel, in some comparisons. One replicated before-and-after study from France found relatively more alien species after restoring river flow. Mammals (2 studies): Two replicated site comparisons from the USA found similar numbers of mammal species in restored and remnant sites. Plants (11 studies) Abundance (6 studies): Four replicated site comparisons from Spain and the USA found lower plant cover in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One of these studies also found higher cover of exotic plants, but another one did not. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flowers in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more seeds, but fewer native seed, in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to orchards next to remnant habitats. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar exotic plant cover in remnant and restored forests. Diversity (6 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found fewer native plant species in restored forests, compared to remnant forests. One of these studies also found more exotic species, but another one did not. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more plant species in restored sites, compared to remnant sites. One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of flower species in restored and remnant sites. One replicated site comparison from the USA found fewer seed species and native seed species in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant riparian habitats. One controlled study from the USA found different plant communities in restored and unrestored habitats. Survival (2 studies): One replicated study from the USA found that about one-third of planted willows survived for one year. One site comparison from the USA found that some species survived after planting, as part of riparian restoration, but others did not. Habitat suitability (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found that vegetation at one of five sites met the criteria for Bell’s Vireo nesting habitat. Size (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found smaller elderberry plants in restored sites. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of reptile species in remnant and restored sites. Implementation options (7 studies) Plants (3 studies): One study from the USA found more tree, shrub, vine, and perennial species, higher canopy cover, and higher native tree cover, in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots, but this study also found fewer annual plant species, lower vegetation cover, lower annual forb cover, and lower grass cover. One study from the USA found an increase in native species and overstorey cover in restored sites, over time, but it found similar numbers of species and overstorey cover in sites planted at different densities. One study from the USA found that willow cuttings planted on the stream bottom had a higher survival rate than those planted on the streambank or terrace. Birds (3 studies): Three studies from the USA found more birds or bird species in older restored plots, compared to younger restored plots. One of these studies also found that the populations of some bird species increased with tree-planting density. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1416Fri, 19 May 2017 09:54:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Exclude grazersAmphibians (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in the abundance of Yosemite toads between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas. Birds (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found more bird species, and more species that were nesting, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. Two replicated site comparisons in desert and wetlands found higher abundances of some or all species of birds in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. The wetland study also found lower abundances, in some comparisons. Fish (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in grasslands in the USA found higher biomass and abundance of golden trout in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. Another one found fewer trout nests in part of a stream with a livestock exclosure, compared to part without a livestock exclosure. Invertebrates (5 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found more species or families of invertebrates in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, for some or all groups. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer aquatic invertebrate species in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in invertebrate abundance between ungrazed and cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, before-and-after site comparison in grasslands in the USA found that populations of a threatened, endemic butterfly declined in sites with cattle excluded, but also declined in cattle-grazed sites. Mammals (4 studies): Two replicated site comparisons in deserts and grasslands in Spain and the USA found more mammal species in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies also found higher mammal diversity, and both studies found higher mammal abundance, in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of black-tailed hares in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, and one replicated, randomized, controlled study in wooded grassland in the USA found no difference in ground squirrel abundance between ungrazed plots and cattle-grazed plots. Plants (41 studies) Abundance (38 studies): Thirty-two studies (13 replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, deserts, and mixed habitats in the USA, Israel, Chile, Spain, and Australia found higher biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or lower cover of non-native species), in areas with cattle, sheep, goats, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Fourteen studies (four replicated, randomized and controlled) from the USA, Israel, Spain, and Australia found lower biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or higher cover of non-native species), in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in the cover of plants (and/or non-native plants) between ungrazed and grazed areas. Diversity (19 studies): Five studies (three replicated) in forests, shrublands, and grasslands in Israel, Spain, and the USA found more species, or fewer non-native species, in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Nine studies in grasslands and shrublands in Australia, Israel, Spain, and the USA found fewer species or native species, larger decreases in the number of species, or smaller increases in the number of species, in areas with cattle, sheep, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Six studies in grasslands, wetlands, and deserts in the USA found no differences in the number of species between areas grazed by cattle, sheep, or alpacas, and ungrazed areas. Four studies in shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands in the USA and Israel found higher plant diversity, or different community composition, in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found lower plant diversity in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in deserts and shrublands in the USA and Israel found no difference in plant diversity between plots with cattle or sheep excluded and grazed plots. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study along creeks in the USA found that similar percentages of planted willows survived in pastures with or without cattle excluded. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher plant survival in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of reptiles, and of some reptile species, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One site comparison in the USA found that more plant species were found in historically cultivated sites that were ungrazed, compared to grazed, but similar numbers of plant species were found in historically uncultivated sites that were ungrazed or grazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417Fri, 19 May 2017 11:18:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/translocating them One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that most reintroduced black lion tamarins that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over four months. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that 90% of reintroduced Müller's Bornean gibbons did not survive despite undergoing veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. Two studies, including one controlled, in Malaysia and Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that underwent veterinary screens, along with other interventions, survived translocation and the first three months post-translocation. Four studies, including three before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republilc of Congo and Guinea found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-5 years. One before and after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Belize, French Guiana, Madagascar, Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived at least four months or increased in population size. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in French Guiana, Madagascar, South Africa and Vietnam found that most reintroduced or translocated primates were assumed to have died post-release despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Kenya found that a population of translocated olive baboons were still surviving 16 years after translocation when veterinary screens were applied alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before introduction to the wild Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that reintroduced primate populations were smaller after 12-17 months and one study in Belize found primate populations increased five years after allowing individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, alongside other interventions. One study found that a reintroduced population of black howler monkeys had a birth rate of 20% after they were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, Madagascar, Malaysia, French Guiana, South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to 12 years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Four studies in Belize, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa found that the majority of primates survived for at least four to 12 months. One study in Vietnam found that half of reintroduced pygmy slow lorises survived for at least two months. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for nine months to four years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Three studies in Liberia and the Congo found that a majority of chimpanzees survived for at least three to five years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. A study in Indonesia found that Sumatran orangutans that were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction performed less well than individuals that were directly released into the forest, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that after being allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions a pair of introduced Bornean agile gibbons had a similar diet to wild gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:08:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates in groups Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of introduced primates declined after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions, while one study in Belize recorded an increase in populations. Two studies in Madagascar and India found that primate populations persisted 4-55 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to seven years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Belize, Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived after between two and thirty months. One study in Madagascar found that introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs Varecia variegata had similar diets to individuals in a wild population after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that a population of introduced chimpanzees increased 25 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Guinea, Liberia and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of chimpanzees survived for at least two to five years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of western gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:46:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is present Four before-and-after studies in Guinea and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced chimpanzees survived for at least one to five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while a study in Senegal found that a reintroduced chimpanzee was reunited with its mother. One study in Malaysia found that a majority of reintroduced orangutans survived reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans had declined 33 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Belize found that primate population increased five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while one study in Thailand found that primate population declined post-reintroduction. Six studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Indonesia, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least fifteen weeks to seven years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Five studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Gabon, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived for at least two months to one year. Two controlled studies in Madagascar and Indonesia found that reintroduced primates had similar diets to individuals in wild populations after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced primates showed similar behaviour to wild individuals after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that a reintroduced muriqui rejoined a wild group after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (raise water table) Thirty-six studies evaluated the effects of rewetting (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Fifteen studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). Fifteen studies were in fens or fen meadows (two were naturally forested). Six studies were in general or unspecified peatlands. Some studies were based on the same experimental set-up or sites as each other: two studies in Germany, three studies in Sweden, two studies in west Finland and two studies in south Finland. Plant community composition (13 studies): Six before-and-after studies (four also replicated) in peatlands in Finland, Hungary, Sweden, Poland and Germany reported changes in the overall plant community composition following rewetting. Typically, drier grassland communities were replaced by more wetland- or peatland-characteristic communities. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the Czech Republic found that rewetted plots developed a different plant community to drained plots. Three site comparison studies in Finland and Canada reported that rewetted peatlands contained a different plant community to natural peatlands. Three replicated studies in peatlands in the UK and fens in Germany reported that rewetting typically had no effect, or insignificant effects, on the plant community. Characteristic plants (11 studies): Five studies (including one replicated site comparison) in peatlands in Canada, the UK, China and Poland reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased the abundance of wetland- or peatland-characteristic plants. Two replicated site comparison studies in fens or fen meadows in central Europe found that rewetting reduced the number of fen-characteristic plant species. Two studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in Sweden reported that rewetting had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants. Two before-and-after studies in fens in the USA and New Zealand reported that upland plant cover decreased following rewetting.  Moss cover (19 studies): Twelve studies (five replicated, two also paired and controlled) in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Canada and Spain reported that rewetting bogs, fens or other peatlands (sometimes along with other interventions) increased Sphagnum moss cover or abundance. Three of these studies reported mixed responses by species. Two additional replicated studies, in bogs in Latvia and forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting had no effect on Sphagnum cover. Five studies (one paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Finland, Sweden and Canada reported that rewetting bogs or fens had no effect on cover of non-Sphagnum mosses (or mosses/lichens). However, two controlled studies in bogs in Ireland and the UK reported that rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum mosses or bryophytes. One site comparison study in Finland reported that a rewetted peatland had similar moss cover (Sphagnum and total) to a natural peatland, but another site comparison study in Canada reported that a rewetted bog had lower moss cover (Sphagnum and other) than nearby target peatlands. Herb cover (25 studies): Twenty-one studies (including four replicated, paired, controlled) reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased cover of at least one group of herbs. These studies were in bogs, fens or other peatlands in the UK, Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, China, Latvia, Poland, Canada and Spain. Specifically, rewetting increased other/total sedge cover in 13 of 15 studies, increased cottongrass cover in eight of nine studies, and increased reed/rush cover in five of seven studies. Three of four before-and-after studies in peatlands in the UK and Sweden reported that rewetting reduced purple moor grass cover; the other study reported no effect. One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland reported that rewetting had no effect on total herb cover. Two site comparison studies in Europe reported greater herb cover in rewetted than natural peatlands (overall and sedges/rushes, but not forbs). Tree/shrub cover (13 studies): Ten studies (including two paired and controlled) in peatlands in Finland, the UK, Germany, Latvia and Canada reported that rewetting typically reduced (seven studies) or had no effect (six studies) on tree and/or shrub cover. Two before-and-after studies in fens in Sweden and Germany reported that rewetting increased tree/shrub cover. One before-and-after study in a bog in the UK reported mixed effects of rewetting on different tree/shrub species. Overall vegetation cover (4 studies): Of four before-and-after studies (three also controlled) that examined the effect of rewetting on overall vegetation cover, two in bogs in Ireland and Sweden reported that rewetting increased it. One study in a fen in New Zealand reported that rewetting reduced vegetation cover. One study in a peatland in Finland reported no effect. Overall plant richness/diversity (14 studies): Six studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Sweden, Germany and the UK reported that rewetting increased total plant species richness or diversity in bogs, fens or other peatlands. However, five studies found no effect: in bogs in the Czech Republic and Latvia, fens in Sweden and Germany, and forested fens in Finland. One study in fen meadows in the Netherlands found scale-dependent effects. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a peatland in Finland reported that rewetting reduced plant diversity. Of four studies that compared rewetted and natural peatlands, two in Finland and Germany reported lower species richness in rewetted peatlands, one in Sweden found higher species richness in rewetted fens, and one in Europe found similar richness in rewetted and natural fens. Growth (1 study): One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found that rewetting increased Sphagnum moss growth to natural levels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Designate a Marine Protected Area and prohibit all types of fishing Thirty studies examined the effects of prohibiting all types of fishing in marine protected areas on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. Four studies were systematic reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand and across the world). Two studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Bahamas). Five were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, French Polynesia). Three were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA). Seven were in the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia). One was in the Florida Keys (USA). One was in the Coral Sea (Australia). Three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain). One was in the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea (UK). Two were in the Firth of Clyde (UK). One was in the Foveaux Straight (New Zealand).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Overall community composition (3 studies): Three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish community composition, similar combined mollusc and echinoderm community composition, and similar overall community composition of large invertebrates but different composition of small sessile invertebrates, compared to fished areas. Overall species richness/diversity (5 studies): One global systematic review, and three site comparison studies (one replicated and paired, one replicated, one paired) in the Mediterranean Sea, the Tasman Sea, and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for five to 16 years depending on the study, had similar overall invertebrate species richness/diversity, similar combined algae, invertebrate and fish species richness, and similar combined mollusc and echinoderm species richness, compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found inside a marine protected area prohibiting all mobile fishing that macroinvertebrate species richness remained stable over the 15 years after its designation and enforcement, but decreased at fished sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall abundance (4 studies): Two systematic reviews of marine protected areas across the world prohibiting all fishing found that they had greater overall invertebrate abundance and biomass compared to fished areas. Two site comparison studies (one before-and-after, one replicated) in the Tasman Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, overall invertebrate abundance did not change over the 15 years after their designation and enforcement and that it did not change in fished areas either, and that all areas had similar combined mollusc and echinoderm abundance after 16 years. Overall condition (1 study): One global systematic review found that in marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, invertebrates were bigger compared to fished areas. Crustacean abundance (17 studies): Two reviews (one global and systematic, one of New Zealand areas) found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more lobsters compared to marine protected areas only partially prohibiting fishing and unrestricted fished areas. Eleven of 15 site comparison studies (including replicated, randomized, paired, before-and-after) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Coral Sea found that inside marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing, the abundances and/or biomasses of lobsters and mud crabs were higher compared to areas where seasonal or unrestricted fishing was allowed, after four to 33 years depending on the study. Four found that they had mixed effects on the abundances of lobster, and crab species, after one to seven years depending on the study. Two found that they had similar abundance of lobsters compared to fished areas after either five to seven years or after approximately 30 years.  Crustacean reproductive success (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated, randomized) in the Florida Keys and the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing and harvesting had similar population sex ratios of lobsters compared to where seasonal fishing or all fishing was allowed, after four to seven years depending on the study. Two replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had greater lobster egg production potential compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones and fully fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. One site comparison study in the Firth of Clyde found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had more female lobsters with eggs than fished areas, after four to seven years. Crustacean condition (8 studies): One review of studies in New Zealand, and five of seven site comparison studies (four replicated, one replicated and randomized) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea, the Firth of Clyde, the Florida Keys, the South Pacific Ocean, the Coral Sea, and the Tasman Sea, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had bigger lobsters and crabs compared to seasonally fished or fully fished areas, after four to seven years depending on the study. Three found mixed effects on lobsters and crabs depending on species, sex, and locations, after one to seven years depending on the study. Crustacean population structure (2 studies): Two replicated site comparison studies (one randomized) in the Tasman Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had different population size structures of lobsters compared to commercial fishing exclusion zones (only for females) and compared to fished areas, after either 15 years or 21 to 25 years. Echinoderm abundance (3 studies): Two of three site comparison studies (two replicated, one paired) in the North Pacific Ocean, the South Pacific Ocean, and the North Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing had similar abundance of Kina sea urchins after more than 10 years, and sea cucumbers after eight years to fished areas, and a third found higher abundance of red sea urchins after approximately 30 years. One also found that the effects on abundance of red sea urchins depended on the age of the protected area and the size of the urchins. Echinoderm condition (1 study): One paired, site comparison study in the South Pacific Ocean found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for over 10 years had heavier Kina sea urchins compared to fished areas. Mollusc abundance (10 studies): Four of 10 site comparison studies (including replicated before-and-after, and site comparison) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean the South Pacific Ocean, the Tasman Sea, and the Foveaux Straight found that inside a marine reserve prohibiting all fishing, abundances/biomass of giant clams, adult queen conch, Cook’s turban snails, rock scallops and green abalone were higher compared to a fished area, after eight to 36 years depending on the study. Six found similar abundances of scallop species, pink abalone, juvenile queen conch, and top shell species, after five to 36 years depending on the study. Three found lower abundances of star limpets after 23 to 25 years and blacklip abalone after 15 to 16 years. One found that the effects of marine protected areas prohibiting all fishing on the abundance of mussel species compared to a commercial fishing exclusion zone varied with the age and location of the protected areas. Mollusc reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that inside a marine protected area that had been prohibiting all fishing for 33 to 36 years, abundance of queen conch larvae was higher compared to an unprotected fished area. Mollusc condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the North Pacific Ocean found that in marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing pink abalone were bigger five to 23 years after their designation, compared to fished site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2224Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival Twenty-four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary food to increase reproduction/survival. Nine studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, two were in South Africa, two were in Poland, and one each was in Sweden, the Netherlands, eSwatini, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Austria, Norway and Sweden and one was across North America and Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Four of eight studies (incuding four controlled, two site comparisons and five before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Poland and Austria found that supplementary feeding increased the abundance or density of bank voles, red squirrels, striped mice, brown hyena and black-backed jackals. One study found a temporary increased in prairie vole abundance. The other three studies found supplementary feeding not to increase abundance or density of white-footed mice, northern flying squirrels, Douglas squirrels or Eurasian otters. Reproduction (8 studies): Four of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, South Africa, Norway and Sweden, Sweden and Spain, found that supplementary food increased the proportion of striped mice that were breeding, the number of arctic fox litters and the size of prairie vole litters. However, there was no increase in the number of arctic fox cubs in each litter or the proportion of female Iberian lynx breeding. One of two replicated studies (one site comparison and one controlled), in the Netherlands and the USA, found that supplementary feeding increased the number of young wild boar produced and recruited in to the population. The other study found that the number of mule deer produced/adult female did not increase. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate reproductive rates in five of eight relevant studies. Survival (9 studies): Four of eight studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada, Poland and Spain, found that supplementary feeding increased survival of mule deer, bank voles, northern flying squirrels and eastern cottontail rabbits. Five studies found no increase in survival for white-tailed deer, Douglas squirrels, mule deer, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep lambs or Iberian lynx. A review of studies across North America and Europe found that supplementary feeding increased ungulate survival in four out of seven relevant studies. Condition (4 studies): One of three studies (including two controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Poland, the USA, and Canada, found that supplementary food lead to weight gain or weight recovery in bank voles. One study found no body mass increase with supplementary feeding in northern flying squirrels and Douglas squirrels. The third study found mixed results, with supplementary feeding increasing weight gains in some cotton rats, depending on their sex, weight and the time of year. A review of studies from across North America and Europe found that different proportions of studies found supplementary feeding to improve a range of measures of ungulate condition. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in Sweden found that supplementary food increased occupancy of Arctic fox dens. A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial feeding stations were used by European rabbits. Behaviour (4 studies): Two of three replicated studies (two also controlled), in eSwatini, Slovenia and the USA, found that supplementary feeding led to reduced home range sizes or shorter movements of red deer and elk. The third study found home ranges and movement distances to be similar between fed and unfed multimammate mice. One replicated study in Poland found that supplementary feeding of ungulates altered brown bear behaviour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2367Tue, 26 May 2020 16:24:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Thirty-seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using prescribed burning. Twenty-five studies were in the USA, three each were in Canada and South Africa, two each were in Spain and Tanzania and one each was in France and Auatralia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found similar small mammal species richness after prescribed burning compared to in unburned forest. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that prescribed burns early in the dry season resulted in higher small mammal species richness relative to wildfires later in the season. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of 10 replicated studies (of which eight were controlled and two were site comparisons), in the USA, Spain and Australia, found that prescribed burning did not increase abundances of small mammals. Three studies found mixed effects, on cottontail rabbits and small mammals and two found that burning increased numbers of European rabbits and small mammals. A systematic review in the USA found that two mammal species showed positive responses (abundance or reproduction) to prescribed burning while three showed no response. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in South Africa found that 92% of Cape mountain zebra foals were produced in the three years post-fire compared to 8% in the three years pre-fire. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA, found that prescribed burning did not reduce bot fly infestation rates among rodents and cottontail rabbits. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two site comparisons and one controlled study), in the USA and Canada, found that prescribed burning resulted in larger areas being occupied by black-tailed prairie dog colonies and smaller individual home ranges of Mexican fox squirrels. The third study found that prescribed burning did not increase occupancy rates of beaver lodges. BEHAVIOUR (22 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Ten of 21 studies (including eight controlled studies and eight site comparisons with a further four being before-and-after studies), in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Tanzania and France, found that prescribed burning increased use of areas (measured either as time spent in areas or consumption of food resources) by bighorn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, plains bison, Cape mountain zebrasand mouflon. Six studies found mixed effects, with responses differing among different ages or sexes of white-tailed deer, bison and elk, differing among different large herbivore species or varying over time for elk, while swift foxes denned more but did not hunt more in burned areas. The other five studies showed that prescribed burning did not increase use or herbivory by elk, black-tailed deer, white-tailed deer or mixed species groups of mammalian herbivores. Behaviour change (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that vigilance of Thomson’s gazelles did not differ between those on burned and unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388Thu, 28 May 2020 08:57:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate to re-establish or boost populations in native range Sixty-four studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals to re-establish or boost populations in their native range. Twenty studies were in the USA, eight in Italy, four in Canada and South Africa, three in the Netherlands and Spain, two in each of the USA and Canada, Zimbabwe, Sweden, Australia and the USA and Mexico and one in each of Uganda, the UK, Brazil, France, Portugal, Africa, Europe, North America, Botswana, Nepal, Chile, Slovakia, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland and one global study. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (62 STUDIES) Abundance (22 studies): Two studies (incuding one controlled and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in Spain and Canada found that translocating animals increased European rabbit abundance or American badger population growth rate at release sites. Fourteen studies (one replicated) in South Africa, the USA, the Netherlands, Italy, France and Spain found that following translocation, populations of warthogs, Eurasian beavers, red squirrels, roe deer, Alpine ibex, Iberian ibex, Cape mountain zebra, 22 species of grazing mammals, black bears, brown bear, bobcats and most populations of river otters increased. Two reviews in South Africa and Australia found that reintroductions (mainly through translocations) led to increasing populations for four of six species of large carnivores and that over half of translocations were classified as successful. One replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that translocating desert bighorn sheep did not increase the population size. Two studies (one replicated) and a review in USA and Canada, the USA and Australia found that translocated American martens, and sea otters at four of seven sites, established populations and that translocated and released captive-bred macropod species established populations in 44 of 72 cases. A study in Italy found that following the translocation of red deer, the density of Apennine chamois in the area almost halved. A worldwide review found that translocating ungulates was more successful when larger numbers were released, and small populations grew faster if they contained more mature individuals and had an equal ratio of males and females. Reproductive success (16 studies): A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois reproduced in similar numbers to released captive-bred chamois. Fourteen studies (four replicated) in Canada, the USA, Zimbabwe, South Africa, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands and Slovakia found that translocated black and white rhinoceroses, warthogs, common dormice, European ground squirrels, cougars, bobcats, brown bears, sea otters, river otters and some Eurasian otters reproduced. A study in the Netherlands found that translocated beavers were slow to breed. Survival (39 studies): Four of five studies (including three controlled, two replicated and one before-and-after, site comparison study) in the USA, Canada and Chile found that wild-born translocated long-haired field mice, female elk, cougars and American badgers had lower survival rates than non-translocated resident animals. One found that translocated Lower Keys marsh rabbits had similar survival rates to non-translocated resident animals. Five of four studies (two replicated, four controlled) and two reviews in Canada, Canada and the USA, the USA, Italy, Sweden and Africa, Europe, and North America found that wild-born translocated swift foxes, European otters, black-footed ferret kits and a mix of carnivores had higher survival rates than released captive-bred animals. One study found that wild-born translocated Apennine chamois had a similar survival rate to released captive-bred animals. Twenty of twenty-one studies (including two replicated and one before-and-after study) and a review in Nepal, France, Italy, Portugal, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland, Canada, USA, Brazil, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Botswana found that following translocation, populations of or individual mammals survived between two months and at least 25 years. The other two studies found that two of 10 translocated white rhinoceroses died within three days of release and an American marten population did not persist. A review in Australia found that over half of translocations, for which the outcome could be determined, were classified as successful. Two of three studies (one replicated) and one review in Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and the USA and Mexico found that following release of wild-caught translocated and captive-bred animals, European otters and common dormice survived three months to seven years. The review found that most black-footed ferret releases were unsuccessful at maintaining a population. A replicated study in the USA found that following translocation of bighorn sheep, 48–98% of their offspring survived into their first winter. Condition (3 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in the USA and Italy found that following translocation, populations of elk had similar levels of genetic diversity to non-translocated populations, descendants of translocated swift fox had genetic diversity at least as high as that of the translocated animals and brown bear genetic diversity declined over time. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): A study in Italy found that following translocation, Alpine ibex used similar habitats to resident animals. Two of four studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the USA, Netherlands and Botswana found that following translocation (and in one case release of some captive-bred animals), most Eurasian otters settled and all three female grizzly bears established ranges at their release site. The other two studies found that most nine-banded armadillos and some white rhinoceroses (when released into areas already occupied by released animals) dispersed from their release site. Two studies (one replicated) in Spain found that following translocation, Iberian ibex expanded their range and roe deer increased their distribution six-fold. Behaviour change (2 studies): A replicated controlled study in Chile found that following translocation, long-haired field mice travelled two- to four-times further than non-translocated mice. A controlled study in Italy found that wild-caught translocated Apennine chamois moved further from the release site than released captive-bred animals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2397Thu, 28 May 2020 10:46:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in family/social groups Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals in family or social groups. Eleven were in the USA, seven were in South Africa and one was in each of Poland, Zimbabwe, along the USA–Canada border, Russia, Italy, Canada, China and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): A study in the USA found that a translocated population of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep released in groups increased at a similar rate to that of a population newly established through natural recolonization. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that after translocating black-tailed prairie dogs in social groups to areas with artificial burrows, colonies increased in size over four years. A replicated study in Canada found that following translocation of elk, most of which had been kept in holding pens in groups, numbers increased at two of four sites. A study in the USA found that following the release of captive-reared bighorn sheep in groups, the overall population declined over 14 years. Reproductive success (11 studies): A study in the USA found that captive-reared bighorn sheep released in groups had similar population recruitment rates compared to wild-reared sheep. A replicated, paired study in the USA found that black-tailed prairie dogs translocated as family groups had higher reproductive success than those translocated in non-family groups. A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Six of eight studies (one replicated) in Poland, Russia, South Africa, the USA and the USA–Canada border found that when translocated and/or captive-bred animals were released in social or family groups, cheetahs, European bison, lions, African wild dogs, most European beavers and some swift foxes reproduced successfully. One study found that one of two translocated Cape buffalo groups released after being held in a holding pen formed a single herd and reproduced, while the other scattered and escaped the reserve. One study found that no Gunnison's prairie dogs reproduced during the first year. Survival (19 studies): One of three studies (one controlled, before-and-after) in the USA found that when translocated or captive-bred animals were released in family or social groups, captive-reared bighorn sheep had similar survival compared to wild-reared sheep, whereas two found lower survival compared to wild white-tailed deer and San Joaquin kit foxes. Three replicated studies (one controlled, one paired) in the USA found that when translocated as a social or family group, black‐tailed prairie dogs had higher and white-tailed deer and gray wolves had similar survival rates to those translocated as unrelated groups or individuals. Ten studies (one replicated) in Poland, Russia, Italy, South Africa, the USA, USA–Canada border, China and India found that when translocated and/or captive-bred animals were released in social or family groups, a population of Przewalski’s horses and European bison persisted 5-11 years, lions, most swift foxes and European beavers and half or more cheetahs survived for at least one year, and one-horned rhinoceroses and over half of Gunnison's prairie dogs and Eurasian badgers survived at least 1-6 months. Three studies in the USA and South Africa found that when translocated or captive-bred animals were released in family or social groups (some provided with artificial refuges and/or supplementary food), most Mexican wolves did not survive over eight months and all rock hyraxes died within 90 days. A study in South Africa found that translocated and captive-bred African wild dogs released in family groups into fenced reserves had high survival rates. Condition (1 study): A study in China found that following the release of captive-bred Przewalski’s horses in groups, the population had a lower genetic diversity than two captive populations. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled (one before-and-after) studies in the USA found that when translocated as a social or family group, white-tailed deer had similar average dispersal distances and Utah prairie dogs had similar release site fidelity and post-release behaviour compared to those translocated as unrelated groups. One found that deer translocated together did not stay together, whether they had previously been part of the same social group or not. A study in Zimbabwe found that a translocated lion family joined with immigrant lions and formed a new pride. A study in South Africa found that translocated lions that were released in groups that had already been socialised and formed into prides, established stable home ranges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2463Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:17:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated mammals into fenced areas Twenty-four studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated mammals into fenced areas. Nine studies were in Australia, six studies were in South Africa, two studies were in the USA and one study was in each of India, China, Spain, Hungary, Namibia and South Africa and France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Five studies (one replicated) in the USA, Australia and South Africa found that following translocation into fenced areas, 18 African elephant populations, tule elk, brushtail possum and elk and bison increased in number and following eradiation of invasive species a population of translocated and released captive-bred burrowing bettongs increased. A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that the abundance of translocated European rabbits was higher in areas fenced to exclude predators than unfenced areas. Reproductive success (7 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in France and Spain found that after translocation, reproductive success of common hamsters and European rabbits was higher inside than outside fenced areas or warrens. Four studies (one replicated, controlled) in China and South Africa found that following translocation into a fenced area, Père David's deer, lions, translocated and captive-bred African wild dogs and one of two groups of Cape buffalo reproduced. A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure reproduced, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to breed. Survival (13 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in Spain and France found that after translocation, survival rates of common hamsters and European rabbits were higher inside than outside fenced areas or warrens. A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not persist. Five studies in India, China, South Africa, Namibia and South Africa and Australia found that following translocation into fenced areas, most black rhinoceroses and greater Indian rhinoceroses, Père David's deer, most oribi and offspring of translocated golden bandicoots survived for between one and 10 years. Two studies in Australia found that only two of five translocated numbats survived over seven months and western barred bandicoots did not persist. A study in South Africa found that translocated and captive-bred African wild dogs released into fenced reserves in family groups had high survival rates. A study in Australia found that following release into fenced areas, a translocated population of red-tailed phascogales survived longer than a released captive-bred population. A replicated, controlled study in South Africa found that after translocation to a fenced reserve with holding pens, survival of released lions was higher than that of resident lions. Condition (3 studies): A replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that eastern bettongs translocated into fenced predator proof enclosures increased in body weight post-release, with and without supplementary food. A replicated study in South Africa found that following translocation into fenced reserves, stress hormone levels of African elephants declined over time. A study in Australia found that golden bandicoots descended from a population translocated into a fenced area free from non-native predators, maintained genetic diversity relative to the founder and source populations. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A site comparison study in Australia found that following translocation into a predator-free fenced area, woylies developed home ranges similar in size to those of an established population outside the enclosure. A study in Hungary found that one fifth of translocated European ground squirrels released into a fenced area with artificial burrows remained in the area after release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2467Wed, 03 Jun 2020 09:40:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in areas with invasive/problematic species eradication/control Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals in areas with eradication or control of invasive or problematic species. Sixteen studies were in Australia, four were in the USA, and one in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (21 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): A replicated study in Australia found that increasing amounts of regular predator control increased population numbers of released captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots. Two studies in Australia found that following eradication or control of invasive species, a population of translocated and released captive-bred burrowing bettongs increased and a population of translocated western barred bandicoots increased over four years. A study in Australia found that following the release of captive-bred bridled nailtail wallabies and subsequent predator controls, numbers increased over a three years, but remained low compared to the total number released. Reproductive success (2 studies): A study in Australia found that four of five captive-bred mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure produced a second generation, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to reproduce. A study in Australia found that most female captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies released into a large predator-free fenced area reproduced. Survival (18 studies): Ten studies (one controlled, three replicated, two before-and-after studies) in Australia, and the UK found that following the eradication/control of invasive species (and in some cases release into a fenced area), a translocated population of woylies, western barred bandicoots and red-tailed phascogales survived over four years, released captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots survived up to three years at five of seven sites, offspring of translocated golden bandicoots survived three years, over half of released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies survived over two years, captive-bred water voles survived for at least 20 months or over 11 months at over half of release sites, most released captive-bred hare-wallabies survived at least two months, most captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots survived for over three weeks. A replicated study in Australia found that after the control of invasive species, four translocated populations of burrowing bettongs died out within four months. A review of studies in Australia found that in seven studies where red fox control was carried out before or after the release of captive-bred eastern-barred bandicoots, survival varied. A study in Australia found that four of five captive-bred mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not. A study in Australia found that captive-bred bridled nailtail wallabies released from holding pens in areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival rates to that of wild-born translocated animals. Two studies (one replicated) in the USA found that where predators were managed, at least half of released captive-bred black-footed ferrets survived more than two weeks, but that post-release mortality was higher than resident wild ferrets. A before-and-after study in the USA found following the onset of translocations of black bears away from an elk calving site, survival of the offspring of translocated elk increased. Condition (2 studies): A study Australia found that wild-born golden bandicoots, descended from a translocated population released into a predator-free enclosure, maintained genetic diversity relative to the founder and source populations. A replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that one to two years after release into predator-free fenced reserves, translocated eastern bettongs weighed more and had improved nutritional status compared to before release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that translocated Utah prairie dogs released after the control of native predators into an area with artificial burrows showed low site fidelity and different pre- and post-release behaviour. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2469Wed, 03 Jun 2020 14:51:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred individuals to re-establish or boost populations in native range Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred mammals to establish or boost populations in their native range. Seven studies were in the USA, three were in Australia and Italy, two studies were in each of Canada, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa and one study was in each of France, Africa, Europe, and North America, Estonia, the USA and Mexico, Poland and China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of five studies (one replicated) and two reviews in Saudi Arabia, Australia, the USA, South Africa, France, the Netherlands and China found that following release of captive-bred (or in one case captive-reared, or including translocated) animals, populations of mountain gazelles, Corsican red deer, Père David's deer, Eurasian otters and swift foxes increased. The two reviews found that following release of mainly translocated but some captive-bred large carnivores, populations of four of six species increased, and over half of mammal release programmes were considered successful. Reproductive success (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated) in Saudi Arabia, the UK and the Netherlands found that released captive-bred (and in some cases some wild-born translocated) mountain gazelles, dormice and some Eurasian otters reproduced successfully and female Arabian oryx reproduced successfully regardless of prior breeding experience. A controlled study in Italy found that released captive-born Apennine chamois reproduced in similar numbers to wild-caught translocated chamois. Survival (24 studies): Four of three controlled studies (two replicated) and two reviews in Canada, Canada and the USA, Sweden, Italy and across the world found that released captive-bred swift foxes, European otters and mammals from a review of 49 studies had lower post-release survival rates than did wild-born translocated animals. The other study found that released captive-born Apennine chamois survived in similar numbers to wild-caught translocated chamois. Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that released captive-born Key Largo woodrats, Vancouver Island marmots and swift fox pups had lower survival rates than wild-born, wild-living animals. One of the studies also found that Vancouver Island marmots released at two years old were more likely to survive than those released as yearlings. Eleven studies (three replicated) in Italy, Sweden, the UK, Estonia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the USA found that following the release of captive-bred (and in some cases some wild-born translocated) animals, Arabian oryx, populations of European otters, European mink and mountain gazelle survived for 2-11 years, roe deer and over a third of brush-tailed rock-wallabies, black-footed ferrets and brown hares survived for 0.5-24 months and dormice populations survived three months to over seven years. A review in Australia found that release programmes for macropod species resulted in successful establishment of populations in 61% of cases and that 40% survived over five years, and another review in Australia found that over half of programmes were considered successful. Two studies and a review in the USA, USA and Mexico and South Africa found that over 40% of released captive-bred American black bears were killed or had to be removed, only one of 10 oribi survived over two years and that most black-footed ferret releases were unsuccessful at maintaining a population. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two studies in the USA and Australia found that following release, most captive-bred and translocated mountain lions that had been held in captivity prior to release and most released captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies established stable home ranges. A controlled study in Italy found that released captive-born Apennine chamois remained closer to the release site than released wild-caught translocated chamois. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2476Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:11:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/control non-native mammals Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling non-native mammals. Twenty-one studies were in Australia, and one was in each of France, the UK, Equador and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Ten of 18 controlled, before-and-after or site comparison studies, in Australia, found that after controlling red foxes, abundances, densities or trapping frequencies increased for rock-wallaby spp., eastern grey kangaroo, woylie,, brush-tail possum, tammar wallaby, chuditch and quenda. Seven studies found mixed results with increases in some species but not others, increases followed by declines or increases only where cats as well as foxes were controlled. The other study found no increase in bush rat numbers with fox control. One of three replicated, before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies), in Australia, France and Ecuador, found that control of invasive rodents increased numbers of lesser white-toothed shrews and greater white-toothed shrews. One study found that Santiago rice rat abundance declined less with rodent control and one found mixed results, with increased numbers of short-tailed mice at one out of four study sites. Survival (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that controlling red foxes increased survival of juvenile eastern grey kangaroos. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Three studies (two before-and-after, one controlled), in the UK and Australia, found that after controlling non-native American mink, red foxes and European rabbits, there were increases in ranges or proportions of sites occupied by water vole, common brushtail possum, long-nosed potoroo and southern brown bandicoot and four native small mammal species. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following removal of feral cats, vertebrate prey increased as a proportion of the diet of island foxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2504Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:58:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under roads Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under roads. Eight studies were in the USA, four were in Australia, four were in Canada, two were in Spain, one each was in Germany, the Netherlands and South Korea and three were reviews with wide geographic coverage. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): A study in South Korea found that road sections with higher underpass density did not have fewer wildlife-vehicle collisions. A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation of mammals using crossings under roads. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that overwinter survival of mountain pygmy-possums increased after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed. BEHAVIOUR (23 STUDIES) Use (23 studies): Seventeen of 20 studies (including seven replicated studies and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, the Netherlands, and across multiple continents, found that crossing structures beneath roads were used by mammals whilst two studies found mixed results depending on species and one study found that culverts were rarely used as crossings by mammals. One of the studies found that crossing structures were used by two of four species more than expected compared to their movements through adjacent habitats. A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was used by mountain pygmy-possums. A replicated study in Germany found that use of tunnels by fallow deer was affected by tunnel colour and design. A study in the USA found that a range of mammals used culverts, including those with shelves fastened to the sides. Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in Australia found that after an artificial rocky corridor, which included two underpasses, was installed, dispersal of mountain pygmy-possums increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2514Fri, 05 Jun 2020 10:17:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install overpasses over roads/railways Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing overpasses over roads or railways. Seven studies were in Canada, three were in Spain, three were in Australia, two were in Sweden, one each was in the Netherlands, Germany, Croatia and the USA, and three (including two reviews) were conducted across multiple countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Survival (4 studies): Four studies (including three before-and-after studies), in Canada, Sweden and Australia, found that overpasses (in combination with roadside fencing) reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. In two of these studies, data from overpasses and underpasses were combined for analysis. BEHAVIOUR (21 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Nineteen studies, in North America, Europe and Australia, found that overpasses were used by mammals. A wide range of mammals was reported using overpasses, including rodents and shrews, rabbits and hares, carnivores, ungulates, bears, marsupials and short-beaked echidna. A review of crossing structures in Australia, Europe and North America found that overpasses were used by a range of mammals, particularly larger mammal species. A global review of crossing structures (including overpasses) found that all studies reported that the majority of crossings were used by wildlife. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2526Mon, 08 Jun 2020 13:33:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing and underpasses along roads Fifty-five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing and underpasses along roads. Twenty-seven were in the USA, nine were in Canada, seven were in Australia, two each were in Spain, Portugal, the UK and Sweden, one each was in Denmark, Germany and Croatia and one was a review covering Australia, Europe and North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Survival (15 studies): Eleven of 15 studies (including 12 before-and-after studies and two site comparisons), in the USA, Australia, Sweden and Canada, found that installing underpasses and associated roadside barrier fencing reduced collisions between vehicles and mammals. Three studies found that the roadkill rate was not reduced and one study found that vehicle-mammal collisions continued to occur after installation. BEHAVIOUR (52 STUDIES) Use (52 studies): Seventeen of 18 studies (including 10 before-and-after studies) in the USA, Canada and Sweden, which reported exclusively on ungulates, found that underpasses installed along with roadside barrier fencing were used by a range of ungulate species. These were mule deer, mountain goat, pronghorn, white-tailed deer, elk, moose and Florida Key deer. The other study found that underpasses were not used by moose whilst one of the studies that did report use by ungulates further reported that they were not used by white-tailed deer. Further observations from these studies included that elk preferred more open, shorter underpasses to those that were enclosed or longer, underpass use was not affected by traffic levels and that mule deer used underpasses less than they used overpasses. Thirty-four studies (including four before-and-after studies, seven replicated studies, three site comparisons and two reviews), in the USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Croatia and across multiple continents, that either studied mammals other than ungulates or multiple species including ungulates, found that underpasses in areas with roadside fencing were used by mammals. Among these studies, one found that small culverts were used by mice and voles more than were larger underpasses, one found that bandicoots used underpasses less after they were lengthened and one found that culverts were used by grizzly bears less often than were overpasses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2571Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:35:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees Thirty studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial dens or nest boxes on trees. Fourteen studies were in Australia, nine were in the USA, three were in the UK, one was in each of Canada, Lithuania, South Africa and Japan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Three of five controlled studies (three also replicated) in the USA, the UK, Canada and Lithuania, found that provision of artificial dens or nest boxes increased abundances of gray squirrels and common dormice. The other two studies found that northern flying squirrel and Douglas squirrel abundances did not increase. Condition (1 study): A replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that nest boxes provision did not increase body masses of northern flying squirrel or Douglas squirrel. BEHAVIOUR (27 STUDIES) Use (27 studies): Twenty-seven studies, in Australia, the USA, the UK, Canada, South Africa and Japan found that artificial dens or nest boxes were used by a range of mammal species for roosting and breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2584Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:48:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Seventy-nine studies examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting all types of fishing in a marine protected area on fish populations. Fifteen studies were in the Indian Ocean (Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique, Madagascar, multiple African countries, Australia). Twelve studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, France, Italy). Ten studies were in the Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, USA, Hawaii, New Caledonia, Costa Rica, Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands). Seven studies were in each of the Coral Sea (Australia, Vanuatu), the Tasman Sea (New Zealand, Australia) and the Atlantic Ocean (Brazil, USA, Puerto Rico, Argentina, South Africa, UK, Canary Islands, Portugal, Turks and Caicos Islands). Four studies were in the Philippine Sea (Philippines). Three studies were in the Caribbean Sea (Belize, Puerto Rico). One study was in each of the Gulf of Mexico (USA), the Java Sea (Indonesia), the Pacific and Indian Oceans (multiple countries), the Sulu Sea (Malaysia) and the North Sea (Norway). Six studies were reviews of marine reserves (New Zealand, Latin America/Caribbean, regions unspecified and across the world).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (26 STUDIES)  Community composition (7 studies): Seven site comparison studies (two replicated, and one before-and-after) in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian Ocean, Philippine Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for between three and 16 years, had a different fish community composition, compared to fished areas.  Richness/diversity (22 studies): Fourteen of 20 site comparison studies (eight replicated, one replicated and paired, and one before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Philippine Sea, Tasman Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, Coral Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that marine protected areas that had prohibited all fishing for between one to more than 25 years, had higher fish species/richness compared to fished areas. Six studies found similar fish species/richness between one and 20 years after all fishing was banned in protected areas, compared to fished areas. One systematic review in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found no difference in species richness between unfished protected areas and fished areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the effects of prohibiting all fishing on fish species richness/diversity after 15 years varied with the sampling method used. POPULATION RESPONSE (66 STUDIES) Abundance (64 studies): Thirty of 54 site comparison studies (18 replicated, eight replicated and paired, two before-and-after, one paired and before-and-after, and one replicated and before-and-after) in the Indian Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Philippine Sea, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and the Sulu Sea, found that marine protected areas that had been prohibiting all fishing for up to 25 years or more, had higher abundances (density and/or biomass) of all fish (total fish biomass, total fish density), fishery targeted fish species, non-fishery targeted fish species and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, except fish densities (all or most) and non-fishery targeted species, compared to unprotected fished areas and/or partly-fished protected areas. The studies also found that in some cases where the total fish biomass or densities were higher in no-fished areas, the effect varied between individual groups of fish based on species family and/or position in the food chain, commercial target and non-target species, fish sizes, depth and habitat types. Eight studies found that inside protected areas prohibiting all fishing there were similar abundances of all fish, and all or most of the individual fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas between one and 20 years after implementation. The other sixteen studies found that the effect of prohibiting fishing in protected areas for three to 20 years on fish abundance varied between fish species or groups and on their fished status (fishery target or non-target) and/or position in the food chain. One also found that the effect varied with size or age of the protected areas. Five of six reviews (three systematic) across the world, in the Pacific and/or Atlantic Oceans and in unreported regions found that non-fished marine reserves with one to 27 years of protection had higher abundances of all fish, all fish and invertebrates combined and blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between species/groups and fishing intensity outside reserves. The other review found that fish abundance varied between species in no-take marine reserves between one and 25 years old, and was affected by food chain position, level of exploitation and duration of protection. One replicated study in the Pacific Ocean found a long-term decline in the abundance/presence of eight of 12 shark and ray species inside an established (>15 years) no-fishing protected area, however enforcement was poor. One before-and after, site comparison study in the Pacific Ocean, found no differences in overall fish abundance between a marine reserve closed permanently to fishing for five years and a closed area that was harvested for two years during the same period. One site comparison study in the Coral Sea found that in a no-take zone of an area protected for at least 10 years, fish abundance of four of six fish groups were similar to no-entry and fished zones, but two had lower abundance than the no-entry zone. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the Tasman Sea found that in a non-fished marine park zone abundance of commercially targeted fish was higher than partly fished zones but lower than unprotected areas after four to eight years. Reproductive success (1 study): One site comparison study in the Mediterranean Sea found more eggs of four commercially targeted fish species inside a non-fished marine reserve enforced for three years than in fished areas outside the reserve. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that prohibiting all fishing in a marine protected area for three years resulted in similar survival of red hind grouper, compared to fished areas. Condition (20 studies): Two global review studies (one systematic) and two systematic reviews in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans found that prohibiting all fishing in marine protected areas for one to 27 years resulted in larger fish overall and larger blue cod compared to fished areas, but there were differences between individual fish families or species. Eight of 11 site comparison studies (four replicated, one before-and-after, one paired, and one replicated and paired) in the Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Java Sea and the Philippine Sea, found that non-fished protected areas had larger fish overall and larger individuals of all or most of the fish species/groups monitored, compared to fished areas, after one to 22 years. The other three studies found similar fish sizes of all or all but one species, compared to fished areas one to 16 years after all fishing was prohibited. Three site comparison studies (one replicated) in the Coral Sea, Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean found that fish size in protected areas that had not been fished for six to more than 20 years, varied between fish species or food chain groups. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that red hind grouper were larger, but had similar growth, in an area protected from fishing for three years compared to fished areas. One site comparison study in the Atlantic Ocean found that young lemon sharks in areas protected from fishing for 20 years had similar growth rates, but lower condition, than sharks in unprotected fished areas. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)  Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Pacific and Indian Oceans found that surgeonfish and parrotfish inside established protected areas where fishing was prohibited, showed a similar avoidance response to fishing gears as in fished areas, and this increased with increasing fishing intensity outside the protected areas. One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that in non-fished areas protected for one and 24 years, fish grazing rates were higher compared to fished areas.  OTHER (15 STUDIES) Use (7 studies): Four of six site comparison studies in the Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean and the Tasman Sea found that marine protected areas where all fishing had been prohibited for at least five to 15 years, were used for a large proportion of time by shark and ray species and commercially important reef fish species, compared to fished areas, thus were provided protection from fishing. Two other studies found that time spent inside areas closed to all fishing for 20 years and over 30 years, varied between species and with size for three shark species and with size for giant trevally. One replicated study in the Indian Ocean found that most individuals of five fish species remained inside a marine reserve zone closed to fishing over a nine-year period. Catch abundance (2 studies): One of two site comparison studies in the Mediterranean Sea and Pacific Ocean found that commercial fish catch rates in small-scale traditional fisheries were highest closest to a marine reserve closed to all fishing for 22 years, and decreased with increasing distance from the reserve. The other study found that there was no increase in fish catch rates in commercially landed catch in the five years after a no-fishing zone was implemented in a co-managed protected area. Stock biomass (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the Indian Ocean found that the stock biomass (the harvested portion of the population) of reef fish species was highest in enforced protected areas closed to all fishing, compared to various other area management regimes.  Fishing mortality (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in the North Sea and Pacific Ocean found that prohibiting fishing in protected areas resulted in reduced commercial fishing mortality of corkwing wrasse tagged inside non-fished marine reserves compared to fished areas, and that the overall fishing mortality of grey reef sharks tagged inside protected areas was low.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2682Sat, 28 Nov 2020 14:35:06 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size Forty-two studies examined the effects of using a larger mesh size of fishing net on marine fish populations. Ten studies, and one review, were in the Atlantic Ocean (UK, Portugal, USA). Eight studies were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey). Five studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, France, North Europe) and three were in the Tasman Sea (Australia). Two studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Turkey), the Pacific Ocean (USA, Chile), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (Northern Europe) and the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). One study was in each of the English Channel (UK), the Bering Sea (USA), the Baltic Sea (Finland), the Caribbean Sea (Barbados), the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Barents Sea (Norway) and the Arabian Sea (India).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One of three controlled studies (one replicated and paired, and one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea and Bristol Channel found that larger mesh sizes improved the post-capture survival of skates and rays compared to smaller meshes. The other two found similar post-capture survival in haddock, whiting and small herring between trawl nets with larger mesh and nets of smaller mesh size. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Bristol Channel reported that the condition of skates and rays at capture was better with a larger trawl codend mesh size compared to a smaller mesh. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (41 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (21 studies): Fifteen of 20 replicated studies (five controlled, two paired, eight paired and controlled, one randomized and one randomized and controlled) in the North Sea, Skagerrak/Kattegat, Aegean Sea, Caribbean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and the Bristol Channel found that using a larger mesh size in a fishing net (various trawls, gillnets, seines and trammel nets) reduced the catches of unwanted (small/undersized, non-commercial, discarded) fish or fish and invertebrates combined, compared to nets with standard/smaller mesh sizes. One study found that amounts of unwanted fish were reduced with larger mesh at smaller catch sizes but were similar between large and small meshes at larger catch sizes, and one found that increasing a trawl codend mesh size reduced the unwanted catch of one of two fish species compared to a standard mesh. Three found that larger mesh sized fishing nets did not typically reduce the unwanted fish catch compared to nets of smaller mesh sizes. One study found that increasing both the mesh size and minimum size limit reduced catches of the youngest fish. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (23 studies): Nineteen of 21 replicated studies (eight controlled, four paired and controlled, three randomized and controlled, and one paired) and one review, in the North Sea, Aegean Sea, Baltic Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Tasman Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Barents Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that larger mesh sizes (both diamond and square) of the netting of various gear types improved the size-selectivity for all fish species assessed and in one, for two of three fish species, compared to smaller mesh sizes. One study found that size-selectivity for fish was not improved with larger mesh size in the netting of fish traps. The other found that increasing the codend mesh size of trawls fitted with size-sorting escape grids resulted in similar size-selectivity of the codend for fish compared to smaller codend mesh sizes. One controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net codend with a larger size of square mesh had similar size-selectivity for Atlantic mackerel as a smaller diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:56:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different hook type Twenty-five studies examined the effect of using a different hook type on marine fish populations. Nine studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, South Africa, USA, Brazil, Portugal, Iceland), six studies were in Pacific Ocean (New Zealand, Japan, Costa Rica, Hawaii, Fiji) and two studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy). One study was in each of the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland), the Coral Sea (Australia) and the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain/Morocco). Four studies were reviews (worldwide, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Survival (10 studies): Four of seven replicated, controlled studies in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Coral Sea and two of three worldwide systematic reviews, found that using different hook types in longline or recreational fisheries, including sizes, styles and other modifications to hooks, reduced the incidence of fish hook injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality), and reduced the capture mortality of some species of unwanted sharks and rays and non-target billfish species, compared to conventional hooks or other hook types. The other four studies found that using a different hook type did not reduce the post-release mortality of young sea breams, or the capture mortality of sharks species and non-target fish species, but did reduce the incidence of deep-hooking in some cases. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (23 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Eight of 16 replicated studies (13 controlled, one randomized) in the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Barents Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Denmark Strait and Coral Sea, found that using a different hook type, including different sizes, styles and hook modifications, reduced the unwanted catch in longline and recreational hook fisheries of non-commercially targeted and targeted fish species, small non-target fish species, overall fish catch, overall discarded bony fish catch but not sharks and rays, undersized haddock, two of three unwanted fish species, non-target sharks and rays and non-target rays and sailfish, compared to standard hooks or hooks of other types. Seven studies found that changing hook type did not reduce the unwanted catch of young or non-target fish species, unwanted sharks and rays, unwanted blue shark, unwanted roughhead grenadier or non-target pelagic stingray and silky shark, compared to standard or other hook types. The other study found that catch rates of young groupers, and non-target fish and shark species varied with hook design, and larger hooks caught fewer non-target fish species overall, but more undersized grouper and sharks compared to other hook types. Four global systematic reviews found that hook style did not affect the unwanted catch of billfish species, sharks and rays or sharks, compared to standard styles. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies in the Atlantic Ocean and Strait of Gibraltar, found that increasing hook sizes improved the size-selectivity (by increasing the average catch length) of hottentot and black spot seabream compared to smaller hook sizes. The other study found that a different hook size improved size selectivity for two of five commercially targeted fish species and was also affected by bait size. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2698https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2698Tue, 08 Dec 2020 15:46:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify fishing trap/pot configuration Twenty-three studies examined the effects of modifying fishing trap or pot configuration on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (USA, Brazil, Canary Islands, Canada). Three studies were in each of the Bothnian Sea (Sweden), the Baltic Sea (Poland, Sweden), the Tasman Sea (Australia) and the Indian Ocean (Kenya, South Africa). One study was in each of the Kattegat (Denmark), the Mediterranean Sea (Spain), the Adriatic Sea (Italy), the Southern Ocean (Australia), the Pacific Ocean (Canada) and the Barents Sea (Norway).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Bothnian Sea found that survival of small herring escaped from a pontoon fish trap through a size-sorting grid was similar to trap-caught herring that did not pass through a grid. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (22 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (20 studies): Sixteen of 20 replicated studies (11 controlled, one randomized, paired and controlled, one randomized and controlled, two paired and controlled and one randomized) and one before-and-after study in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Southern Ocean, Tasman Sea, Adriatic Sea, Bothnian Sea, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, the Kattegat and the Barents Sea, found that modifications to trap configuration (various, including using a different trap type, increased mesh size and fitting an escape device) reduced the unwanted (undersized, discarded or non-commercial target) catches of fish (overall, or all of multiple study species), brown trout, black sea bass, herring, bluethroat wrasse and leatherjacket, cod, protected rockfishes, whitefish, black sea bass, American eel and winter flounder, sharks/rays and of salmon and rainbow trout in one of two cases, compared to unmodified conventional traps or traps of other designs. One of these also found that the number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates) was lower in modified traps. Three other studies, found that trap modification or type had no effect on unwanted catches of white croaker, non-commercial fish or undersized Atlantic cod, and non-target haddock catches were increased. However, one of these also reported that traps (creels) did not catch high proportions of immature fish, unlike bottom trawls. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (4 studies): Three of four replicated studies (two controlled and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the Baltic Sea, Tasman Sea, Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean found that traps or pots modified with a square mesh escape window or larger mesh sizes improved the size-selectivity of Atlantic cod, black sea bass and most fish species compared to smaller mesh and/or standard gear. The other found that increasing mesh size of a trap escape panel had no effect on size-selectivity of panga. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2702Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:32:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend in a trawl net Twenty-six studies examined the effects of using a square mesh instead of a diamond mesh codend in a trawl net on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, Portugal, USA), four were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey), three were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain) and the Tasman Sea (Australia), two studies were in each of the English Channel (UK), the Adriatic Sea (Italy) and the South Pacific Ocean (Australia, Chile), and one study was in each of the Greenland Sea (Iceland), the North Pacific Ocean (USA), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Kattegat and the Skagerrak (Denmark) and the Coral Sea (Australia).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the Aegean Sea and Bristol Channel found that the short-term survival of two of six fish species was higher after escaping through a square mesh compared to a diamond mesh codend. The other study reported that skate caught in a square mesh codend had a higher overall survival likelihood than those caught in a diamond mesh codend. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (25 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (16 studies): Ten of 16 replicated, controlled studies (including five paired, three randomized and three randomized and paired) in the Greenland Sea, Aegean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Pacific Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, English Channel, Bristol Channel and Coral Sea, found that square mesh codends reduced the unwanted (non-target or non-marketable/discarded) catches of all fish species monitored, young individuals of half or most commercially targeted fish, total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates), and discarded fish in deeper but not shallower fishing areas, compared to diamond mesh codends; and two of those studies also found that there was a variable effect on unwanted catch between individual fish species/groups. Four studies found no reduction in catches of unwanted small rockfish and flatfish, three of four commercially important bottom fish species, total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates), or the total number of unwanted species (fish and invertebrates), compared to diamond mesh codends. One study found that square mesh codends retained more fish overall than diamond mesh but varied for individual species by fish shape and size. One study found that unwanted fish catch depended on codend mesh size as well as configuration (square or diamond). Two of the studies, where square mesh codends had no or a varied effect, also found that size selectivity increased with increases in mesh size for both square and diamond mesh codends. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (14 studies): Six of 14 replicated, controlled studies (including three paired, one randomized and one randomized and paired) in the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Adriatic Sea, Aegean Sea, English Channel, Pacific Ocean, Tasman Sea and the Kattegat and Skagerrak, found that using a square mesh codend in a trawl net (bottom and pelagic) improved size selectivity for silver hake, horse mackerel, European hake, axillary seabream, poor cod, greater forkbeard, blue whiting, discarded fish and three of four commercially targeted fish, compared to diamond mesh codends. Five studies found no difference in size selectivity between square and diamond mesh codends for Atlantic mackerel, long rough dab, yellowtail scad and striped seapike, rockfish and flatfish, and three of four commercially important bottom fish species. The other three studies found that the effect of square mesh instead of diamond mesh codends varied with fish body shape (round or flat), and for three of three and five of five roundfish species size selectivity was improved, but not for one flatfish. Two of the studies, where square mesh codends had either no or a varied effect, also found that size selectivity increased with increases in mesh size for both square and diamond mesh codends. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2714https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2714Fri, 01 Jan 2021 14:39:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net Thirty-eight studies examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Ten studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, Norway), four studies were in each of the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Sweden, Northern Europe), Kattegat and/or Skagerrak (Norway/Sweden/Denmark) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Iceland, UK, Northern Europe). Two studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and two were in the Bay of Biscay (France). One study was in each of the Irish Sea (UK), the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Bering Sea (USA), the Indian Ocean (Mozambique), the Norwegian Sea (Norway), the Pacific Ocean (Chile), the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USA), the Gulf of Maine (USA) and the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy). Two studies were reviews (Northern Europe), and one study was in a laboratory (Japan).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that there was no difference in survival between cod escaping from diamond mesh codends with or without square mesh escape windows. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in a laboratory found that small immature masu salmon were able to actively swim (escape) through the meshes of square mesh panels under simulated trawl conditions. OTHER (36 studies) Reduce unwanted catch (30 studies): One before-and-after study in the Baltic Sea and fourteen of 19 replicated studies (including one paired, four controlled, 10 paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, Irish Sea, Tasman Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, Mid-Atlantic Bight, Indian Ocean, Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows of varying designs and number fitted to diamond mesh trawl nets (bottom and pelagic), reduced the unwanted catches (non-target or non-marketable species/sizes) of all fish species monitored, all but one and one of four fish species, the main unwanted fish species but only two of nine other finfish, and the total unwanted/discarded catch (fish and invertebrates combined), compared to standard diamond mesh trawl nets, and the effect varied with panel/window design, position in the net and/or fish body type, as well as catch size. The other five studies and a review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak, found that square mesh panels/windows did not reduce the unwanted catches of fish, Atlantic cod and three of three commercial bottom fish species, compared to diamond mesh nets without panels/windows. Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including three paired) in the North Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Maine, found that large diamond mesh escape panels in diamond mesh trawl nets (beam and bottom) reduced unwanted catches of cod, whiting and haddock, and discarded catch (fish and invertebrates), but not of whiting in one study, compared to nets without large diamond mesh panels, and the effect varied with panel design and vessel size. The other study found that the unwanted catches of only one of seven species/groups of non-target fish was reduced by a large diamond mesh panel. Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that new or different configurations of square mesh panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets reduced unwanted fish and cod catches, compared to existing/standard panels or windows. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that diamond mesh trawl nets with either a top square mesh escape panel or a large supported opening ('Bigeye') reduced unwanted shark, but not ray and sawfish catches compared to standard trawl nets. One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that supplementing a top square mesh escape window in a prawn trawl net with either a bottom window, a flexible escape grid or an increased mesh size diamond codend, did not reduce the unwanted hake catch Improved size selectivity of fishing gear (9 studies): One review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four paired) in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, northeast Atlantic Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets improved the size selectivity of trawl nets for Atlantic cod and haddock, compared to trawl nets without panels/windows, and there was no difference compared to standard trawl nets with reduced mesh circumferences, and the effect varied with panel position and design. The other two studies found no effect on the size selectivity of undersized fish, haddock, saithe or Atlantic cod, compared to standard trawl nets. One review study of gear size selectivity in the northeast Atlantic Ocean found that the effect of fitting square mesh panels to trawl nets on haddock selectivity varied with panel mesh size, position, and time of year. One replicated, controlled study in the Norwegian Sea found no difference in the size selectivity of cod and haddock between diamond mesh trawl nets fitted with either square mesh escape windows, rigid size-sorting escape grids or a large diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:18:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Thirty studies examined the effects of fitting size-sorting escape grids to prawn/shrimp trawl nets on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Sea (Scotland/Norway, Belgium/Netherlands, UK, Scotland), four were in the Coral Sea (Australia) and two were in each of the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, USA), the Pacific Ocean (Chile, USA), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (northern Europe) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Svalbard), the Bay of Biscay (France), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Gulf of Thailand (Vietnam), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy), the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia), the Persian Gulf (Iran) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (30 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (30 studies): Seven of seven replicated studies (including one controlled) in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, North Atlantic Ocean, Greenland Sea, Gulf of Thailand, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat found that fitting rigid or flexible size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, to prawn/shrimp trawl nets reduced unwanted fish catches (non-commercial species and discarded commercial species/sizes) by allowing the escape of unwanted sharks and the other fish species monitored. Two of two before-and-after studies in the Gulf of Maine and Pacific Ocean found that after the introduction of size-sorting escape grids to trawl nets in fisheries for shrimp, the capture of non-target and unwanted fish was reduced compared to before grids were used. Eleven of 20 replicated studies (including one controlled and 19 paired and controlled) in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, North Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Pacific Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of St Vincent and Persian Gulf found that prawn/shrimp trawls with size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, had lower catches of all or all but one undersized or otherwise unwanted fish and shark/ray species monitored, and unwanted total catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to trawl nets without escape grids. Two found that escape grids reduced non-target catches of most sizes of whiting and plaice and larger sizes of total fish, but increased the retention of small cod and haddock. Three studies found a variable effect of fitting escape grids to shrimp/prawn trawl nets on unwanted fish catch compared to nets with no grids, and the effect varied with year, site and grid type. Three found that grids had no effect on the reduction of unwanted fish and catches were similar for all or most of the unwanted non-commercial and commercial fish species/groups and for the total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates). The other study found that fewer unwanted fish of 10 of 11 species/groups were retained in a shrimp/prawn trawl net with an escape grid used in combination with a diamond mesh codend with the mesh orientation turned by 90°, compared to a conventional diamond mesh net with no grid. One replicated, randomized study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that the reduction in catch of unwanted sharks depended on the type of escape grid and shrimp/prawn trawl net used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:42:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl fishing gear (bottom and mid-water) Twenty-three studies examined the effects of using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl fishing gear on marine fish populations. Ten studies were in the Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, Brazil, Spain, Norway). Five studies were in the Barents and/or Norwegian Sea (Norway). Two studies were in the Kattegat and Skagerrak (Denmark/Sweden). One study was in each of the Arafura Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Norway), the North Sea (Norway), the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the Indian Ocean (Australia). One study was in a laboratory (Japan).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (23 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (17 studies): Six of 16 replicated studies (eight paired and controlled, three controlled, one randomized and controlled, and one paired) in the Atlantic Ocean, a laboratory, Arafura Sea, Barents Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, Greenland Sea, North Sea, Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, and one controlled study in the Barents Sea found that using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system in trawl nets reduced the unwanted (undersized, non-target, discarded) catches of all or most of the fish species assessed, compared to standard or other grid designs/configurations. Four studies found that the effect of using different escape grids on the reduction of unwanted catch varied with fish species, light conditions, and the type of trawl net used. The other six found that, overall, using a different escape grid did not reduce unwanted fish catch. Improve size-selectivity of fishing gear (7 studies): Three of seven replicated studies (three controlled, one paired and controlled) in the Barents/Norwegian Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and the Greenland Sea found that different types or configurations of size-sorting escape grid systems in trawl nets resulted in better size-selectivity for unwanted redfish and Greenland halibut and of commercial target hake compared to other designs or configurations. Three studies found that the effect of using a different design or configuration of size-sorting escape grid/system on improving the size-selectivity of trawls varied between fish species compared to standard or other escape grid designs. The other study found that a new design of grid system did not improve the size-selectivity of unwanted redfish compared to an existing system. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2728Mon, 25 Jan 2021 16:30:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing gear Thirty-three studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on fishing gear. Eight studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, UK), four studies were in each of the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the North Sea (Germany, Denmark, UK), three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy), two studies were in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina, Brazil) and the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Germany, Sweden), and one study was in each of Moreton Bay (Australia), the Black Sea (Turkey), the Celtic Sea (UK), the South Pacific Ocean (Peru), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), the UK (water body not stated), the Great Belt (Denmark), Omura Bay (Japan), and the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (16 STUDIES) Behaviour change (16 studies): Twelve of 16 controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Fortune Channel, the South Atlantic Ocean, Moreton Bay, the Mediterranean Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Rainbow Channel, a coastal site in the UK, the Great Belt, the North Sea, Omura Bay and the Indian Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets resulted in harbour porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, tuxuci dolphins, finless porpoises and seals approaching nets or lines less closely, having fewer encounters or interactions with nets, or activity and sightings were reduced in the surrounding area. The other four studies found that using acoustic devices on trawl nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets did not have a significant effect on the behaviour of common bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or dugongs. OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (14 studies): Nine studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and after studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the South Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on cod traps or fishing nets resulted in fewer collisions of humpback whales or entanglements of harbour porpoises, Franciscana dolphins, beaked whales and small cetaceans. Three studies (including two controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets resulted in fewer entanglements of some species but not others. One controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets with a ‘complete’ set of acoustic devices had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises, but those with an ‘incomplete’ set did not. One replicated, controlled study in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets reduced harbour porpoise entanglements in one fishing area but not the other. Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five of six studies (including six controlled studies, one of which was replicated) in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, a coastal site in the UK and the North Sea found that using acoustic devices reduced damage to fish catches and/or fishing nets caused by common bottlenose dolphins and seals. The other study found that acoustic devices did not reduce damage to swordfish catches by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:56:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate and release injured, sick or weak marine and freshwater mammals Twenty-seven studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating and releasing injured, sick or weak marine and freshwater mammals. Nine studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, UK, France), six studies were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), four studies were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), two studies were in each of the North Sea (the Netherlands) and the Gulf of Maine (USA), and one study was in each of the Indian River Lagoon (USA), Bohai Bay (China), The Wash estuary (UK), water bodies in Florida (USA), El Dorado Lake (Peru), and the Gulf of California (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (26 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One replicated study in the North Pacific Ocean found that more than a quarter of rehabilitated and released Hawaiian monk seals reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Twenty-one studies (including two controlled studies, four replicated studies and one review) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Maine, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Pacific Ocean, the Indian River Lagoon, The Wash estuary, water bodies in Florida, El Dorado Lake, and the Gulf of California found that 10–100% of dolphins, porpoises, whales, seals, sea lions and manatees released after rehabilitation in captivity survived during post-release monitoring periods, which ranged in length from three days to five years. Five studies (including one replicated study) in the North Sea, the North Atlantic Ocean, Bohai Bay and the North Pacific Ocean found that two of three harbour porpoises, 152 of 188 grey seal pups, a common seal, a west Pacific finless porpoise and 14 of 35 California sea lions were successfully rehabilitated and released but survival after release was not reported. One controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that at least a quarter of California sea lions treated for toxic algae poisoning and released back into the wild died or had to be euthanized. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): Two of three controlled studies in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean and The Wash estuary found that a harbour porpoise and six harbour seals that were rehabilitated and released had similar movements and/or behaviours to wild mammals. The other study found that California sea lions treated for toxic algae poisoning and released travelled further from the shore, spent less time diving or hauled out and made shorter, shallower dives than wild sea lions without poisoning. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2925https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2925Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:57:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore/create freshwater marshes or swamps (specific action unclear) Twenty-five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of restoring/creating freshwater marshes or swamps using unclear or incompletely described actions. Twenty-three studies were in the USA. Two were in Canada. Two of the studies used the same set of wetlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created wetlands had greater coverage of herbaceous vegetation after 7–8 years than natural wetlands, but lower coverage of forest and shrubby vegetation. Community composition (17 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that the overall plant community composition in created freshwater wetlands differed from the community in natural wetlands, after 1–21 years. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada reported mixed effects of freshwater marsh restoration/creation on overall algal or plant community composition, depending on the habitat and use of mining waste during creation. Of four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada, three reported lower quality vegetation in restored/created wetlands than in natural wetlands, but one reported similar vegetation quality in created and natural wetlands. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found that created marshes developed a plant community characteristic of similar wetness to natural marshes within 4–21 years – but in one study, this was only true for created marshes >10 years old. Seven replicated studies in the USA simply quantified the composition, quality or wetness of the plant community up to 22 years after wetland restoration/creation. Overall richness/diversity (17 studies): Eleven replicated studies, in the USA and Canada, compared overall plant richness/diversity in created/restored and natural/unmanaged freshwater wetlands. Five of the studies found that created/restored wetlands typically had similar plant taxonomic richness to natural/unmanaged wetlands. Three of the studies reported lower species richness in created than natural wetlands after 1–18 years. Two of the studies reported higher species richness in created than natural wetlands after 1–21 years. The final study reported mixed effects of marsh creation on plant species richness, depending on the vegetation zone and use of mining waste during creation. Two of the studies reported identical results for plant diversity as for richness (similar or greater in created vs natural wetlands) but one study found that the effect of management on plant diversity depended on the timing of drawdown. Six replicated studies in the USA simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity over 1–16 years after wetland restoration/creation. Native richness/diversity (3 studies): Of two replicated, site comparison studies of freshwater wetlands in the USA, one found that restored/created wetlands contained more native plant species than natural wetlands after 1–11 years. The other found that restored wetlands contained fewer native plant species than natural wetlands after 2–8 years. One replicated study of swamp restoration sites in the USA simply quantified native plant richness over 1–8 years after intervention. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (7 studies): Six replicated studies, all in the USA, compared overall vegetation abundance in created/restored and natural wetlands. Four of the studies found that created/restored freshwater wetlands contained less vegetation (cover or biomass) than natural wetlands after 1–18 years. Two of the studies found that created and natural fresh/brackish/saline wetlands contained a similar amount of vegetation (overall cover and density; wetland plant cover) after >1 year. One of these studies reported that restored wetlands had lower vegetation cover than natural marshes – but this reflected management goals. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified total vegetation cover and biomass 3–10 years after marsh creation. Herb abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that created wetlands had greater overall cover of herb species, after 7–8 years, than natural wetlands. One replicated study in the USA simply quantified herb biomass in wetland restoration sites after 7–22 years. Tree/shrub abundance (1 study): One replicated study in the USA simply quantified the density of woody vegetation in wetland restoration sites after 7–22 years. Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that ≤15-year-old restored freshwater marshes contained a similar phytoplankton biomass to natural marshes. Individual species abundance (9 studies): Nine studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that created and natural freshwater marshes supported a similar abundance of pickerelweed Pontederia cordata after 1–11 years. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3190https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3190Wed, 07 Apr 2021 07:27:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses or habitat types. Twenty-one studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Israel, the UK, China, Luxembourg and Canada. Eight studies used sites from a common set of 62 restored prairie potholes in the Midwest USA. Five studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in Florida. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (5 studies): One replicated, paired, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA reported that damming a stream reduced the area of emergent vegetation on the floodplain. Two before-and-after studies of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of emergent herbaceous vegetation increased. Two studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified coverage of wetland vegetation 1–6 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Community types (9 studies): Nine studies quantified the effect of this action on specific types of marsh vegetation. For example, one before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported greatly increased coverage of wet prairie plant communities after dechannelizing a river to raise the water table, but only slightly increased coverage of mixed herbaceous/shrubby wetland communities. Five studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified the number, abundance or extent of wetland plant communities present 1–6 years after raising the water table (typically along with other interventions). Community composition (8 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) in the USA evaluated the effects of rewetting farmed depressions (along with planting cover crops in/around them). One of these studies reported that restored wetlands contained a different overall plant community to natural wetlands after 5–7 years. One study reported that the plant community composition differed more between restored and natural wetlands than amongst restored or natural wetlands. The final study found that restoration increased vegetation quality after ≥10 years, but not to the level of natural wetlands. Two site comparison studies in China and the USA reported that the plant community became more similar to natural wetlands over 6–15 years after raising the water level – in terms of species composition or overall wetness. Three replicated studies in the USA simply quantified the plant community composition for up to three years after rewetting farmland (sometimes along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) of one set of historically farmed depressions in the USA reported that restored wetlands (rewetted, along with planting cover crops in/around the sites) had lower overall plant species richness than nearby natural wetlands, after 1–7 years. Two before-and-after, site comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that raising the water level reduced overall plant species richness in the following six years. One site comparison study of lakeshore marshes in China reported that the total plant species richness in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. Five studies (two replicated) in the USA and Israel simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity between three months and 19 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site-comparison study of a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level had no clear effect on the richness of wetland-characteristic plant species in the following six years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                                             Overall abundance (9 studies): Three before-and-after, site-comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following 6–9 years. One site comparison study in China reported that vegetation biomass in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. In contrast, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that vegetation cover in rewetted, formerly farmed depressions (also planted with cover crops) was lower than in nearby natural wetlands, after 5–7 years. Four studies (two replicated) in the USA and the UK simply quantified vegetation abundance between three months and six years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (4 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also site comparisons) of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level increased the abundance of habitat- and/or wetland-characteristic plant species in the following 6–9 years. One study in the UK simply quantified the abundance of wet meadow plant species present 3–5 years after rewetting farmland (and introducing grazing). Bryophyte abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the frequency of bryophytes in (the wettest parts of) marshes rewetted 34 years previously was not significantly different from their frequency in (the wettest parts of) nearby natural marshes. Individual species abundance (11 studies): Eleven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study of freshwater marshes in the USA reported that Kneiff’s feathermoss Leptodictyum riparium was the most abundant plant species in marshes rewetted 34 years previously and nearby natural marshes. One before-and-after study of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, some plots became dominated by a non-native grass species. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3198https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3198Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:44:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Twenty-four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly planting emergent, non-woody plants in freshwater wetlands. Sixteen studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Guam, the Netherlands, Israel, Ireland, the UK, Italy, Australia and China. Two pairs of studies in Minnesota and South Dakota took place in the same area but used different experimental set-ups. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia reported that as planted rush stands aged, their near-shore plant community became more similar to that behind mature natural rush stands. Overall richness/diversity (9 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled) in freshwater marshes in China and the USA reported that planting herbs increased plant species richness and/or diversity for up to five years. Two controlled studies in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that planted and unplanted sites had similar plant species richness after 2–3 years. Three studies in the USA, the UK and Australia compared plant species richness in marshes that had been planted with herbs (sometimes along with other interventions) and natural marshes, and reported that it was never higher in planted marshes. Three studies involving freshwater marshes in Guam, the USA and Italy simply quantified plant species richness for up to 13 years after planting herbs (along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater wetlands in the USA found that plots planted with wetland-characteristic herbs had a similar richness of wetland-characteristic plant species, after three years, to unplanted plots. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): One before-and-after study of a freshwater marsh and wet meadow in China found that vegetation cover was greater five years after planting herbs than in the year before planting. One replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater wetlands in the USA found that plots planted with herbs had similar overall vegetation cover, after three years, to unplanted plots. One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia found that as planted rush stands aged, the density of plants in adjacent near-shore vegetation became more similar to mature natural stands. One study in a freshwater marsh in the USA simply quantified vegetation cover and density over 1–9 years after planting herbs (along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater wetlands in the USA found that plots planted with wetland-characteristic herbs had greater cover of wetland-characteristic plants, after three years, than unplanted plots. Individual species abundance (13 studies): Thirteen studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater wetlands in the USA found that both planted herb species had greater cover in planted than unplanted plots, after three years. Three studies in the UK, the USA and Australia compared the abundance of herb species where they had been planted to their abundance in natural marshes: two found that the planted species was more dense in planted than natural areas after 5–14 years, and one found that planted rush stands became more dense (i.e. more like natural stands) as they aged. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia reported that as planted rush stands aged, their width increased – becoming more like mature natural stands. Height (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia reported that as planted rush stands aged, their maximum height increased – becoming more like mature natural stands. One before-and-after study of a freshwater marsh and wet meadow in China found that vegetation was taller five years after planting herbs than in the year before planting. One site comparison study of wet meadows in the USA reported that sedge tussocks in a restored meadow were shorter than sedge tussocks in natural meadows, 11–14 years after planting (along with other interventions). One replicated study in wet basins in the USA simply reported an increase in the average height of a herb species over three growing seasons after it was planted. Diameter/perimeter/area (1 study): One site comparison study of wet meadows in the USA reported that sedge tussocks in a restored meadow had a smaller perimeter than sedge tussocks in natural meadows, 11–14 years after planting (along with other interventions). Basal area (1 study): One site comparison study of wet meadows in the USA reported that the basal area of sedge tussocks was lower in a restored meadow than in natural meadows, 11–14 years after planting (along with other interventions). Individual plant size (2 studies): Two replicated studies in wet meadow restoration sites in the USA reported that the size of Carex stricta seedlings increased over two months or three growing seasons after planting. This was true for the average number of shoots/plant and biomass/plant. OTHER Survival (14 studies): Nine studies (eight replicated) in the USA and Israel quantified survival rates of individual herbs planted in freshwater wetlands. Survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% after 1–3 growing seasons. Eight studies (including five replicated and two before-and-after) in Guam, the USA, the Netherlands and Israel reported 0% survival or absence of planted (or sown) herb species, in at least some cases, after three months to seven years. Proposed factors affecting survival included elevation/water levels, herbivory, time of planting and plug type. Growth (2 studies): Two studies monitored true growth of individual herbs (rather than changes in average height of survivors). The two studies (one replicated) in Ireland and the USA reported that herbs grew over 1–2 growing seasons after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3256https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3256Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:26:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant non-woody plants: brackish/saline wetlands Thirty studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly planting emergent, non-woody plants in brackish/saline wetlands. Twenty-four studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Italy and Australia. One study was a global systematic review. Four of the studies monitored different outcomes of one planting experiment in California. Two other studies used the same marsh as each other. Two studies shared some plots with each other. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia reported that as planted rush stands aged, their near-shore plant community became more similar to that behind mature natural rush stands. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled study on a brackish sandflat in the USA reported that an area planted with wetland herbs contained more plant species, after eight years, than an adjacent unplanted area. One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia found that the near-shore vegetation behind >8-year-old planted rush stands and mature natural stands contained a similar number of plant species. One study of a fresh/brackish/saline marsh in Italy simply quantified plant species richness for up to 13 years after planting herbs (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) of brackish/saline marshes in the USA reported that areas planted with herbs (sometimes along with other interventions) contained less vegetation, after 2–3 growing seasons, than nearby natural marshes. This was true for biomass and cover. One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia found that the density of near-shore vegetation behind older planted rush stands was similar to that behind mature natural stands. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in an estuary in the USA reported that plots planted with salt marsh vegetation contained more vegetation biomass than unplanted plots, after three growing seasons. Individual species abundance (18 studies): Eighteen studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. Four studies in the USA compared the abundance of plant species in planted and unplanted areas. Two replicated studies found that planted herb species were typically more abundant in planted than unplanted plots, after 2–4 growing seasons. One replicated, paired, controlled study reported that there were fewer common reed Phragmites australis stems in plots planted with other wetland herbs (and shrubs) than in unplanted plots, after 1–3 years. One replicated, randomized, controlled study reported species-specific effects of planted individuals on recruitment of conspecific seedlings. Nine studies in the USA and Australia compared the abundance of herb species where they had been planted to their abundance in natural brackish/saline marshes. Results varied between studies, species, metrics and time since planting. One before-and-after study of an intertidal site in the USA reported greater abundance of smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora over five years after planting (along with other interventions) than before. Seven studies (six replicated) in brackish/saline marshes in the USA and Canada simply quantified the abundance of individual species over 1–3 growing seasons after they were planted (sometimes along with other interventions). VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, site comparison study in a salt marsh in the USA found that plots planted with herbs contained more canopy layers than unplanted plots after 2–4 growing seasons. One replicated, site comparison study around fresh/brackish lakes in Australia reported that as planted rush stands aged, their width increased – becoming more similar to mature natural stands. Height (11 studies): Three replicated studies in salt marshes in the USA found that vegetation in areas planted with herbs was at least as tall as vegetation in unplanted areas, 2–4 growing seasons after planting. Of six site comparison studies that compared vegetation height in planted and natural marshes (sometimes along with other interventions), three studies in the USA reported that vegetation was shorter in planted marshes after 2–5 growing seasons. Two studies in the USA and Australia found that vegetation was typically a similar height in planted and natural marshes after 2–11 years. One study in the USA found that vegetation was taller in planted marshes after three growing seasons. Four replicated studies in brackish/saline marshes in the USA simply quantified the height of herbs over 1–5 growing seasons after they were planted; in three of these studies, the average height increased over time. OTHER Survival (17 studies): Seventeen studies (including 13 replicated and one systematic review) in the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Spain and multiple countries quantified survival rates of individual herbs planted (or sown) in brackish/saline wetlands. Survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% after 20 days to 2 years. Four studies in the USA, New Zealand and multiple countries reported 0% survival or absence of planted herb species, in at least some cases, after nine months to eight years. Proposed factors affecting survival included elevation/water levels, age of planted individuals, treatment with root dip, planting date, soil pH, damage by waterbirds, salinity and sediment organic matter content. Growth (2 studies): Two studies monitored true growth of individual herbs (rather than changes in average height of survivors). One replicated study in a brackish marsh in the USA reported that in 8 of 10 cases, rushes/bulrushes grew in both height and circumference over the second year after planting. One replicated study in an estuary in Spain reported growth of planted small cordgrass Spartina maritima and glasswort Sarcocornia perennis over the year after planting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3257https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3257Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:27:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Directly plant trees/shrubs: brackish/saline wetlands Forty-seven studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of directly planting trees/shrubs in brackish/saline wetlands. Forty-four studies involved planting mangroves or other coastal swamp trees: 20 in Asia, seven in Central America, six in Africa, four in North America, four in South America, two in Oceania and one globally. Three studies involved planting shrubs in the USA or Spain. There was overlap in the sites used in two studies. One systematic review included several of the other summarized studies. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies in India and South Africa reported that the area of mangrove forest was greater 6–42 years after planting mangrove trees (sometimes along with other interventions) than in the years before. One study in Sri Lanka simply quantified the area of mangrove vegetation present 8–10 years after planting seedlings (and propagules). Tree/shrub richness/diversity (6 studies): Three site comparison studies in the USA, Mexico and Brazil reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), they contained a similar number of tree species to mature and/or naturally regenerating forests after 10–30 years. One site comparison study in Vietnam reported that after 14–34 years, a planted mangrove forest contained more tree species than a (slightly older) naturally regenerated forest. One replicated, paired, before-and-after, site comparison study in Kenya reported that planted mangrove forest contained fewer adult tree species than mature natural forest after five years, but more species of seedling. One study in a former shrimp pond in Thailand simply reported the number of unplanted tree species that had colonized six years after planting (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Tree/shrub abundance (9 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies of coastal sites in the Philippines, the USA and Brazil reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), woody vegetation was typically more dense than in mature natural forests and/or naturally regenerating forests. Two site comparison studies in Kenya and Vietnam found that tree abundance (density and biomass) was similar in planted and natural mangroves after 5–34 years. One site comparison study in Mexico reported that a planted mangrove forest contained fewer trees than pristine natural forests after 12 years. Two site comparison studies in the Philippines reported mixed results according to time since planting and site. One study in Thailand simply quantified the abundance of mangrove trees six years after planting (along with other interventions). Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Kenya found that mangrove forests restored by planting contained a similar algal biomass, after eight years, to mature natural forests. However, mangrove forests created by planting into bare sediment contained less algal biomass than mature natural forests. Individual species abundance (7 studies): Seven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. Four of the studies compared the abundance of woody vegetation or algae in planted mangrove forests and mature natural forests – and sometimes naturally regenerating forests (see original papers for data). One replicated, paired, controlled study in a brackish wetland in the USA reported that there were fewer common reed Phragmites australis stems in plots planted with wetland shrubs (and herbs) than in unplanted plots, after 1–3 years. One before-and-after study of an intertidal site in the USA reported greater abundance of red mangrove Rhizophora mangle over five years after planting (along with other interventions) than before. VEGETATION STRUCTURE Overall structure (3 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies of coastal sites in the Kenya, the USA and the Philippines reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), their overall structure differed from mature natural forests for up to 50 years. Height (18 studies): Four site comparison studies (three replicated, three paired) of coastal sites in Kenya, the USA, Brazil and the Philippines reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (sometimes along with other interventions), the vegetation was shorter than in mature and naturally regenerating forests after 5–30 years. One site comparison study in Mexico reported that planted mangrove forests contained taller trees than pristine natural forests after 12 years. Fourteen studies (four replicated) in Asia, Central/South America, Africa and North America simply quantified the height of mangrove trees for up to six years after they were planted; in 13 of these studies, the average height increased over time. Diameter (7 studies): Two site comparison studies in Mexio and Vietnam reported that tree diameters were similar in planted and natural mangroves after 12–34 years. In contrast, two site comparison studies in Brazil and the Philippines reported that planted mangroves contained thinner tree stems than mature natural mangroves after 7–12 years. The study in Brazil also reported that stem diameters were thinner than in naturally regenerating areas. Three studies in India and Nigeria simply quantified the diameter of mangrove trees for up to three years after they were planted; in all three studies, the average stem diameter increased over time. Basal area (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (one also replicated, paired, before-and-after) in Kenya and Mexico reported that planted mangrove forests had a smaller basal area than mature natural forests after 5–12 years. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA reported that where mangrove forests developed after planting trees (along with other interventions), their basal area was similar to mature natural forests after 17–30 years. OTHER Survival (37 studies): Thirty-six studies (including one review and one systematic review) quantified survival rates of individual trees/shrubs planted in brackish/saline wetlands. Survival rates ranged from 0% to 100% after 15 days to 21 years. The studies were of mangroves in North America, Central/South America, Asia, Africa, Oceania or globally, and of shrubs in the USA or Spain. Six studies reported 100% survival in some cases. Eleven studies reported 0% survival or absence of planted species in some cases. In six studies, survival of planted seedlings was not distinguished from survival of seeds or propagules. Proposed factors affecting survival included elevation/water levels, exposure to wind/waves, soil properties, sediment deposition, oyster/barnacle colonization, salinity, use of guidance and post-planting care. Growth (9 studies): Nine studies monitored true growth of individual trees/shrubs (rather than changes in average height of survivors). The nine studies, in Colombia, the USA, the Philippines, Brazil and China, reported that planted trees/shrubs typically grew, over periods from 40 days to 50 years. One replicated study in the USA reported that planted seedlings grew less quickly than naturally colonizing seedlings. One replicated, site comparison study in the Philippines found that growth rates of trees in planted mangroves became more similar to those in mature natural mangroves over time. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3259https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3259Sat, 10 Apr 2021 13:27:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Sow native grass and forbs Fifty studies examined the effects of sowing native grass and forb seeds on grassland vegetation. Thirty-six studies were in Europe, twelve studies were in North America and one study was in New Zealand. One review included studies from Europe, North America and Africa. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (42 STUDIES) Community composition (11 studies): Five of 11 studies (10 of which were replicated and/or controlled, and three of which were site comparisons) in the UK, the Czech Republic, Norway and Germany found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the similarity of plant community composition to that of target communities. Three studies found no increase in community similarity to target communities. Two studies found that over time communities became more similar to those of intact grasslands. One study found that over time areas sown with native grass and forb seeds became more similar to areas that were not sown with seeds. Overall richness/diversity (28 studies): Sixteen of 28 studies (24 of which were controlled and four of which were site comparisons) in Europe, North America and New Zealand found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased overall plant species richness. Seven studies found that there was no change in plant species richness or mixed effects on plant species richness and plant diversity. Three studies found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased plant species richness during the first year, but after 3–13 years, species richness did not differ between sown and unsown areas or was lower in sown areas. One study found that after one year, sowing did not alter plant species richness but after eight years, species richness was higher than in unsown areas. Three studies found that species richness was lower in sown areas than in nearby intact grasslands. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (9 studies): Six of nine studies (eight of which were replicated and/or controlled, and two of which were site comparisons) in Europe found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of characteristic grassland plants. Two studies found no change in the species richness of characteristic grassland plants. One study found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of target forbs but not target grasses. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (3 studies): Three replicated, paired, controlled studies in the UK and the Czech Republic found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased sown species richness. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased grass species richness in 54% of cases. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased forb species richness in 71% of cases. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the species richness of native plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (24 STUDIES) Overall abundance (8 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (four of which were randomized and paired) in Europe and North America found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased overall vegetation cover, biomass or density. One study found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased plant species richness during the first 2–7 years, but after eight years, species richness did not differ between sown and unsown areas. Four studies found that there was no change in overall vegetation abundance in all or most cases. Characteristic plant abundance (5 studies): Three of five replicated studies (four of which were controlled, and one of which was a site comparison) in Europe found that sowing native grass and forb seeds did not alter the cover of characteristic grassland species. The other two studies found an increase in the cover of characteristic or target grassland species. Sown/planted species abundance (6 studies): Five of six studies (four of which were replicated and controlled, and two of which were reviews) in Europe, North America, Africa and New Zealand found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the abundance of sown species in all or most cases. The other study found mixed effects on sown species abundance. Grass abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two of which were paired) in the Czech Republic and the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover of grass species. The other study found no change in the cover of grass species. Forb abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, randomized, controlled studies (three of which were paired) in the Czech Republic and the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover or density of forb species. The other study found that one year after sowing, the cover of forb species increased, but after 10 years it did not differ between sown and unsown areas. Native/non-target species abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the cover of native plant species. Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that sowing native grass and forb seeds did not alter yellow rattle abundance. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Germination/Emergence (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was paired) in the USA and Germany found that sowing native grass and forb seeds increased the number of seedlings that emerged. The other study found no change in seedling number. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3432https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3432Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:42:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna Twenty-eight studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Twenty-four studies were in the USA, three were in Australia and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that in areas with prescribed burning, reptile assemblages became similar to more pristine areas that had historically experienced frequent fires. Richness/diversity (11 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burned areas had similar reptile species richness compared to unburned areas. One of the studies also found that burned areas had higher reptile diversity than unburned areas. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Australia and the USA found that reptile species richness remained similar with time since burning. One of two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that burned areas had higher combined reptile and amphibian species richness than unburned areas. The other study found that burned areas had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness and diversity compared to unburned areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (26 STUDIES) Abundance (23 studies): Nine of 21 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burning had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles, six-lined racerunners and western yellow-bellied racer snakes. Six studies found that burned areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, lizards, black racer snakes and more active gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. The other six studies found that burned areas had a similar abundance of reptiles, lizards and gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that reptile abundance increased with time since burning. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that burning in different seasons had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. Survival (2 study): One of two studies (one site comparison and one controlled study) in the USA and Brazil found that Texas horned lizard survival was similar in burned and unburned areas. The other study found that burning had mixed effects on survival of an endemic lizard species. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that eastern fence lizards in recently burned areas ran faster than those from areas that were burned less recently or were unburned. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before and-after study in the USA found that burning affected overwintering habitat use by gopher tortoises. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that in burned areas, black racer snakes had higher surface activity than in unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:38:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate adult or juvenile reptiles: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects of translocating tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles on their populations. Sixteen studies were in the USA, two were Global and one was in each of Italy, the Seychelles, Madagascar, Cameroon, Egypt, China, Jordan and France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated study and one of two global reviews reported that three of eight translocations of turtles resulted in established populations and 15 of 47 reptile translocations resulted in stable or growing populations (review included both wild-caught and captive bred animals). The other review (both wild-caught and captive bred animals) reported that one of five translocation of tortoises and snapping turtles was unsuccessful and four had unknown outcomes. One study in the Seychelles found that 47% of translocated Aldabra giant tortoises were found 12 years after releaser. Reproductive success (5 studies): One global review reported that successful reproduction was found in three of five translocations of tortoises and snapping turtles (review included both wild-caught and captive bred animals). Two of three studies (including one replicated, randomized study) in the USA, Italy and Madagascar reported successful reproduction in translocated populations of gopher tortoises and radiated tortoises. The other study reported no evidence of reproduction for three years following a translocation of European pond turtles. One replicated study in the USA found that translocated female Agassiz’s desert tortoises bred successfully following release, but all hatchlings were sired by resident tortoises, not translocated males. Survival (16 studies): Two of four controlled studies (including one replicated study) in the USA found that translocated eastern box turtles and Eastern painted turtles had lower survival than resident turtles. The other two studies found that translocated desert tortoises and musk turtles had similar survival to that of resident turtles. One replicated study in the USA found that translocated gopher tortoises released into temporary enclosures had similar survival compared to head-started tortoises also released into temporary enclosures over four years. Five of 11 studies (including two replicated, controlled studies) in the USA, Italy, Cameroon, Egypt, China, Jordan and France reported that 69–100% of 3–40 translocated individuals survived for monitoring periods of one month to two years. Four studies reported that 19–43% of 15–109 translocated individuals survived for 2–3 years. The other two studies reported that 0–1% of 15 and 249 translocated individuals survived for up to a year. Condition (3 studies): One controlled study in the USA found that translocated Eastern painted turtles lost more body mass than resident turtles. One controlled, before-and-after, replicated study in the USA found that translocated desert tortoises had similar stress levels compared to resident tortoises. One study in the USA found that one translocated Blanding’s turtle grew over a two-year period following release. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that one of 13 translocated gopher tortoises returned to its point of capture, and no Agassiz’s desert tortoises translocated >5 km returned to their point of capture. Behaviour change (7 studies): Two of six studies (including three replicated, controlled studies) in the USA and Jordan found mixed effects on the movement of translocated red-eared slider turtles in spring or autumn and on the movement and home range size of translocated eastern box turtles compared to residents. Two studies found that four measures of behaviour of translocated musk turtles and home range size of translocated spur-thighed tortoises were similar to residents. One study found that translocated gopher tortoises moved more and had larger home ranges than resident tortoises. The other study found that after ephemeral ponds dried up, translocated Eastern painted turtles did not move to new ponds whereas resident turtles did. One replicated study in France found that the home ranges of translocated European pond turtles were smaller in the year after release compared to the year they were released. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3708https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3708Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:22:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed reptiles in captivity: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Twenty-eight studies evaluated the effects of breeding tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles in captivity. Twelve studies were in the USA, four were in the Seychelles, two were in Madagascar, two were in an unknown location and one was in each of the Galápagos, Germany, Austria, Jersey, Italy, India, China and Myanmar. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (28 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (including one replicated study) in Madagascar, the Seychelles and the USA reported that captive breeding programmes produced 255 ploughshare tortoises, 40 and 140 giant tortoises, 75 juvenile radiated tortoises and 94 Madagascar big-headed turtle hatchlings. One study also reported that the captive population grew each year. One replicated study in Myanmar reported that the number of Burmese star tortoise hatchlings produced in captivity increased from 168 to over 2,000 over eight years. Reproductive success (24 studies): Eighteen studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA, the Galápagos, Germany, Austria, the Seychelles, Italy, India, China and an unknown location reported that females produced 0–25 clutches of 1–26 eggs, 65–78 eggs each/year or a total of 10–170 eggs. Three of these studies reported hatching success of 52–100%, four reported hatching success of 23–71%, three reported hatching success of 0–66%, 0–81% or 0–100% and six reported hatching success of 0–43% or 0–3 hatchings/clutch. One other study from the Seychelles reported that 0–75% of eggs from one of two mud turtle species hatched successfully. One of the studies also found that three of five eggs produced by a captive-bred tortoise hatched successfully. Two studies in Jersey and the Seychelles reported that only 3 Malagasy Flat-tailed tortoise eggs and 3–18 mud turtle eggs hatched successfully over 11–12 years. One study in Madagascar reported that most Madagascar big-headed turtle eggs laid in captivity were infertile. One study in the USA reported that hatching success of 2nd generation captive desert tortoises was 20–83%, whereas success for 3rd generation tortoises was 0–43%. One study in the USA found that hatching success for captive Bourret’s box turtle eggs was higher when incubated at 26–27°C compared to 28–29°C. Survival (7 studies): Three studies (including one replicated study) in the USA, Austria and an unknown location reported that 2–4 captive-bred tortoises or turtles survived for at least 28 weeks to two years. One replicated study in Italy reported that all captive-bred spider tortoises survived to adult size. Two studies in the USA and Jersey reported that 25–30% of captive-bred tortoises died within 12–18 months. One study in the Seychelles reported that 70% of captive-bred mud turtles died during hatching BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Offspring sex ratio (1 study): One study in the USA reported that a captive breeding programme of radiated tortoises produced 67 females and eight males. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3746https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3746Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:18:05 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Breed reptiles in captivity: Lizards Twenty-three studies evaluated the effects of breeding lizards in captivity. Ten studies were in the USA, three were in Australia, two were in the UK and one was in each of Switzerland, an unknown location, the Arabian Peninsula, Mexico, Italy, Spain, Bahamas and Jamaica and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (23 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated study in Spain reported that a captive-breeding programme for large psammodromus lizards produced 365 juveniles for release over two years. One replicated study in Australia reported that captive populations of Lister’s geckos and Christmas Island blue-tailed skinks at two facilities grew or remained stable over 4–5 years. Reproductive success (22 studies): Eighteen studies (including seven replicated studies) in the USA, Switzerland, an unknown location, the Arabian Peninsula, Mexico, Italy, Spain the UK and Australia reported that captive lizards produced one or more clutches of 2–21 eggs, 3–12 eggs/year or gave birth to 21 live young. Eleven of the studies reported hatching success of 45–96%. Three of the studies reported hatching success of 0–40%, 0–43% or 0–100%. One of the studies reported hatching success of <10%. One of the studies also found that hatching success for Australian painted dragon eggs was similar across all incubation temperatures used, but higher for eggs laid earlier in the season. One of two studies (including one replicated study) in Jamaica and the USA and the Bahamas reported that captive breeding programmes lasting 19 and 24 years produced 73 and five Jamaican iguana hatchlings respectively. The other study reported that over 2.5 years, captive San Salvador rock iguanas produced only a single hatchling. One controlled study in the USA found that captive-reared western fence lizard females housed individually or in pairs produced more clutches with fewer infertile eggs compared to females kept in groups of four or eight. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that curious skinks kept in smaller breeding groups and provided nutrient rich food produced more clutches of eggs than skinks that were kept in larger groups and given regular food. Survival (9 studies): Seven studies (including four replicated studies) in an unknown location, Mexico, Italy, the USA and the UK reported that 4–23 captive-bred lizards, or some individuals, survived for six weeks or at least six months to three years, or that individuals of three species survived to reach adult size. Two studies in the USA reported that one of three and eight of 10 captive-bred lizards died within one day or 18 months. Condition (1 study): One controlled study in the USA reported that giant horned lizard eggs incubated at 26.5°C produced larger hatchlings compared to those incubated at 28°C. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in the USA reported that captive female Yuman fringe-toed lizards selected an 8:1 sand:water mixture when laying eggs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3756Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:27:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives) Thirty-two studies evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on butterflies and moths. Eighteen studies were in the UK, eight were in Switzerland two were in Finland, and one was in each of Sweden, the Czech Republic, the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found that the community composition of butterflies on grasslands that farmers were paid to manage for wildlife was similar to intensively managed grasslands. Richness/diversity (19 studies): Twelve of 15 studies (including eight controlled, one before-and-after and five site comparison studies) in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Sweden found that the species richness or diversity of butterflies and moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than on conventional fields or farms. The other three studies found that the species richness of butterflies and micro-moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional fields or farms. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in landscapes with a greater proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in landscapes with a smaller proportion of agri-environment schemes, but the other study found that species richness of butterflies was similar on individual farms with more land managed under agri-environment schemes than on farms with smaller areas of agri-environment schemes. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was similar to that on native prairie. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths on grassland managed under an agri-environment scheme was lower than on abandoned, unmanaged grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (27 STUDIES) Abundance (27 studies): Seventeen of 19 studies (including seven controlled studies, one replicated, site comparison study, two before-and-after studies, and eight site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany found that the abundance of butterflies and moths overall, and of specific species of butterflies or moths, in woodland, grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than in unmanaged woodland or conventional fields or farms. The other two studies found that the abundance of butterflies and macro-moths on field margins managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional margins. Three of four replicated studies (including one controlled and three site comparison studies) in the UK and Switzerland found that the abundance of butterflies was higher on farms or in landscapes with a higher proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in areas with less land in agri-environment schemes. The other study found that the abundance of some species was higher, but others were lower, on farms with enhanced agri-environment management compared to simple management. Three studies (including one before-and-after and two replicated, site comparison studies) in Finland and the Czech Republic found that grassland grazed or restored under agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a lower abundance of all but three butterfly and day-flying moth species compared to unmanaged grassland, and that Danube clouded yellow abundance declined after agri-environment scheme mowing was initiated on abandoned grasslands. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was lower than on native prairie. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:41:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rear declining species in captivity Twenty-two studies evaluated the effects of rearing declining species of butterfly and moth in captivity. Seven studies were in each of the UK and South Africa, two were in the USA, one was in each of the UK and France, Spain, Belgium, Poland and Israel, and one was a review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Three studies in the UK and the USA reported that populations of large copper, large white and monarch butterflies were successfully reared in captivity for 12 generations or >25 years. One study in the UK reported that a captive population of marsh fritillary increased in size over two years. One study in Poland reported that all captive-reared scarce large blue caterpillars died within 35 days. One review reported that attempts to rear caterpillars of four species of large blue had mixed success. Reproductive success (5 studies): One controlled study in the UK reported that female large copper laid more eggs, and these eggs had a higher hatching success, in a cage kept in a greenhouse than in a cage kept outside. One study in South Africa reported that a Dickson’s copper butterfly laid eggs in captivity in the presence of black cocktail ants from the site where she emerged but not from 10 km away. One study in the UK found that female large white from a population kept in captivity for >25 years laid more eggs than females from a population in its third generation in captivity. One study in the UK reported that Fisher’s estuarine moths successfully bred in captivity. One study in South Africa reported that wild-caught, gravid scarce mountain copper butterflies laid eggs but none hatched. Survival (14 studies): Five of six studies (including one replicated, controlled study, four controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the UK, the UK and France, Spain, Belgium and Poland found that large copper, large blue, mountain Alcon blue, cranberry fritillary and scarce large blue caterpillars had higher survival rates when reared on plants or in ant nests at a lower than higher density, in ant nests without queens or with winged females present than with queens or without winged females, when reared at 20 °C than 25 °C, and when reared with ants collected from sites where parasitic butterfly species occur than from sites where parasites do not occur. The sixth study found that mountain Alcon blue caterpillars had a similar survival rate in ant nests with or without queens present. Two of these studies, and one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA, found that the survival of large blue, mountain Alcon blue and monarch caterpillars differed when reared in ant nests of different species or on different species of milkweed. Two site comparison studies in the UK and the USA found that large copper and Puget blue eggs had a similar survival rate to the caterpillar and adult stage whether they were laid in captivity or collected from the wild and reared in captivity. One of these studies also found that Puget blue caterpillars kept in refrigerators while overwintering had a lower survival than caterpillars kept in environmental chambers or outside. Three of four studies in South Africa and the UK reported that some wild-collected Brenton blue butterfly, Karkloof blue butterfly and Fishers’ estuarine moth eggs hatched, survived as caterpillars for three months or to adulthood, bred in captivity and the resulting captive population survived for at least eight generations. The other study reported that wild-collected Brenton blue butterfly eggs hatched in captivity and those caterpillars reared with only Pyllanthus incurvatus leaves died whereas all caterpillars also given Indigofera erecta leaves survived to the fourth instar of development. One study in South Africa reported that wild-caught final instar Cape Peninsula butterfly caterpillars reared in an artificial pugnacious ant nest successfully pupated and became adults, but captive-hatched first instar Cape Peninsula and Riley’s skolly butterfly caterpillars placed next to a nest did not survive to pupation. Condition (5 studies): Two studies (including one controlled study) in the UK and the USA found that adult large white from a population kept in captivity for >25 years were heavier, and had smaller wings, than individuals from a population in its third generation in captivity, and captive-reared Puget blue adults were smaller than wild-caught butterflies. One of these studies also found that Puget blue caterpillars raised in environmental chambers or outdoor enclosures reached a similar size as adults. One replicated, controlled study in Spain found that mountain Alcon blue caterpillars reared in ant colonies with winged females were lighter than caterpillars reared in colonies without winged females. One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that spring webworm caterpillars fed vegetation from cattle-grazed pasture had a similar growth rate to caterpillars fed vegetation from an ungrazed paddock. One study in South Africa reported that Brenton blue butterfly caterpillars reared on Indigofera erecta leaves with no ants became dwarf adults, but those reared on whole Indigofera plants with an ant colony became full-sized adults. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3916https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3916Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:16:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips Twenty-three studies evaluated the effects of planting nectar flower mixtures, or wildflower strips, on butterflies and moths. Eleven studies were in the UK, six were in Switzerland, two were in the USA, and one was in each of Sweden, Finland and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (20 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (20 studies): Eight of thirteen studies (including twelve replicated studies, two randomized studies, five controlled studies, one before-and-after study, and eight site comparison studies) in the UK, Switzerland, Finland and Germany found that sown wildflower strips had a higher species richness and diversity of all butterflies, generalist butterflies, and moths than conventional field margins, unsown margins, cropped fields or conventional grassland. One of these studies also found that the species richness of specialist butterflies was similar in sown wildflower strips, cropped fields and conventional grassland. Four studies found that the species richness of butterflies was similar between sown wildflower strips and cropped fields, cropped margins, unsown strips or extensively managed meadows. The other study found that, five years after sowing wildflower strips, butterfly species richness, but not diversity had increased at one of two study sites. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that the species richness of butterflies and moths was similar on farms managed under agri-environment schemes, including with sown wildflower strips, and on conventionally managed farms. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that field margins sown with wildflowers had a greater species richness of butterflies than grass-only field margins. One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK found that plots sown with a mix of wildflowers had a greater species richness of caterpillars than plots sown with a single flower species. The other study found that plots sown with either complex or simpler flower mixes had a similar species richness of butterflies. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the UK found that wildflower plots sown with phacelia, borage or lucerne had a higher species richness or diversity of butterflies and moths than plots sown with other flower species. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (17 studies): Ten studies (including nine replicated studies, three randomized studies, three controlled studies and seven site comparison studies) in the UK, Switzerland and Finland found that sown wildflower strips had a higher abundance of all butterflies, generalist butterflies, specialist butterflies and meadow brown butterflies than conventional field margins, unsown margins, cropped fields, cropped margins, conventional grassland or extensively managed meadows. However, one of these studies only found this effect in one of two study years. Two of these studies also found that the abundance of specialist butterflies and meadow brown caterpillars was similar in sown wildflower strips and unsown margins, cropped fields and conventional grassland, and one found that the abundance of caterpillars was lower in sown wildflower strips than in conventional grassland. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that the abundance of butterflies and micro-moths was higher on farms managed under agri-environment schemes, including with sown wildflower strips, than on conventionally managed farms, but the abundance of other moths was similar. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that field margins sown with wildflowers had a higher abundance of butterflies than grass-only field margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that farms with wildflower strips (along with other enhanced agri-environment scheme options) had a higher abundance of some butterflies, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms with simpler agri-environment scheme management such as grass-only margins. One of two replicated, paired, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and the UK found that plots sown with one of three wildflower mixes had a higher abundance of moths than plots sown with two other mixes or a single flower species. The other study found that plots sown with either complex or simple flower mixes had a similar abundance of butterflies. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that wildflower plots sown with lucerne had a higher abundance of butterflies than plots sown with borage, chicory or sainfoin. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and the USA reported that sown nectar flower plots and tropical milkweed plots were used by six species of butterflies and moths and monarch butterflies and caterpillars. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3932https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3932Fri, 12 Aug 2022 06:26:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease grazing on grassland to allow early succession Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of ceasing grazing on grassland to allow early succession. Five studies were in the UK, four were in each of Germany and the USA, three were in each of Sweden and Finland, two were in each of Spain and the Czech Republic, and one was in each of Switzerland, Europe and Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Czech Republic and Germany found that the community composition of butterflies and moths in grasslands which had been abandoned for >5 years or an unspecified length of time was similar to grasslands managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that after grazing and mowing management was abandoned, over 6 years the butterfly community became dominated by generalist species, and species with fewer generations/year. Richness/diversity (12 studies): Six of nine replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study, one paired, site comparison, and seven site comparisons) in Germany, the USA, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic found that grasslands which had been not been grazed for >5 years, or an unspecified length of time, in one case with burning, had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying, burnet or all moths to grasslands grazed by cattle, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished) or grazed with cattle and burned. One of these studies also found that grasslands abandoned for 5–15 years had a greater species richness than grasslands grazed by sheep. A further two studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for >5–20 years or many years had a lower species richness of butterflies than grazed grasslands (in one study grazing and mowing were not distinguished). The other study found that butterfly species richness was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in Switzerland, Germany and the UK found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 4, 5–10 or >10 years had a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and nocturnal moths than extensively grazed, recently abandoned or commercially grazed grasslands. Two of these studies also found that grassland abandoned for 4 or 5–10 years had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and all moths to grassland lightly grazed by cattle or sheep/sheep and cattle. POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (24 studies): Six of 20 replicated studies (including one paired, controlled, before-and-after study, three randomized controlled studies, and 15 site comparison studies) in Germany, the USA, the UK, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, the Czech Republic and Israel found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1-25 years had a higher abundance of Scotch argus, butterflies and day-flying moths, nocturnal moths, caterpillars, and of small insects including caterpillars, than grasslands grazed by goats, sheep and/or cattle. Two of these studies only found a difference compared to grazing at commercial/intensive, not low, densities. Four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for two weeks, 5–20 years or an undetermined time had a lower abundance of butterflies and spring webworm caterpillars than grasslands grazed by cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished). A further four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 5-15 years had a similar abundance of butterflies, burnet moths, day-flying moths and meadow neb moth caterpillars to grasslands grazed by sheep, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock. A further four of the studies found that in grasslands which had been abandoned for >10 years, many years or an unspecified number of years, and in one case with burning, abundance or density was mixed depending on butterfly and moth species compared to grasslands grazed by cattle or unspecified grazers or grazed with cattle and burned. The other study found that butterfly density was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Two replicated studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study and one site comparison study) in Spain and Germany found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1–6 years or an unspecified time period had a higher abundance of woodland and hedgerow butterflies and burnet moths, but a lower abundance of grassland or farmland species, than grasslands managed by grazing and/or mowing (results not distinguished). Two studies also found that the large blue and silver-studded blue went extinct in some abandoned meadows. One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that grasslands which were ungrazed for the year had a lower abundance of clouded Apollo butterflies than lightly grazed grasslands, but a higher abundance than heavily grazed grasslands. One review in Europe reported that ceasing grazing on grassland benefitted six out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that grassland which had been abandoned for >5 years had a similar occurrence of hoary bell moth caterpillars to grassland grazed by sheep. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of grasslands which had been abandoned for one year, and grazed grasslands, contained >20 marsh fritillary caterpillar webs. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that grizzled skipper and painted lady occurred less frequently, but small pearl-bordered fritillary occurred more frequently, in meadows which had been abandoned for at least 1–2 years than in meadows managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:36:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting grass margins around arable or pasture fields. Seventeen were in the UK, two were in each of Sweden, the Netherlands and the USA, and one was in each of China, France and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (15 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that 2-m grass margins had a greater species richness of butterflies than cropped field edges, but 6-m grass margins did not. The other study found that the species richness of butterflies was similar in grass margins and cropped field edges. Five replicated, site comparison studies (including one paired study) in the USA, the UK and Italy found that wider grass margins (up to 6 m wide) had a greater species richness or diversity of butterflies, macro-moths and micro-moths than narrower or conventional width margins, although one of these studies found that the species richness of macro-moths was similar in wide and conventional grass margins. Three of five replicated studies (including three randomized, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that floristically enhanced grass buffers or wildflower strips had a greater species richness of butterflies than standard grass margins. The other two studies found that farms with floristically enhanced margins (along with other enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) options) had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to farms with standard grass margins (along with basic AES options) and farms with no grass margins or other AES options. One site comparison study in Sweden found that grass margins sown with legumes or a clover and grass ley had a higher species richness of butterflies and moths than uncultivated margins, but less than a species-rich pasture. One replicated study in the Netherlands found that the species richness of butterflies increased over time after the establishment of grass margins. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that disking or burning grass margins did not affect the species richness of butterflies. POPULATION RESPONSE (22 STUDIES) Abundance (21 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies in the UK found that grass margins had a higher abundance of butterflies than cropped field edges. The other study found that the abundance of gatekeepers on grass margins increased over four years after they were sown, but was only higher than cropped field edges at one of three farms after 2–4 years. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (including two paired studies) in the USA and the UK found that wider grass margins (up to 6 m wide) had a higher abundance of habitat-sensitive butterflies, macro-moths and micro-moths than narrower or conventional width margins. Two of these studies, and the other four studies, found that the abundance of disturbance-tolerant butterflies, macro-moths generally, and pale shining brown moths specifically, was similar in wide and conventional grass margins. Four replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies, one controlled study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Sweden found that floristically enhanced grass buffers or wildflower strips had a higher abundance of butterflies than standard grass margins, uncultivated margins or margins sown with cereal crop. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the UK found that farms with floristically enhanced margins (along with other enhanced agri-environment scheme (AES) options) had a higher abundance of some butterflies and micro-moths, a similar abundance of macro-moths, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms with standard grass margins (along with basic AES options) and farms with no grass margins or other AES options. One site comparison study in Sweden found that grass margins sown with legumes or a clover and grass ley had a higher abundance of butterflies and moths than uncultivated margins or a species-rich pasture. Two replicated, before-and-after studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in the Netherlands and the USA found that mowing, disking or burning grass margins did not affect the abundance of butterflies and moths generally, or diamondback moths specifically, but that disking increased the abundance of disturbance-tolerant butterflies. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in the UK found that field margins had a similar abundance of butterfly and moth caterpillars to beetle banks established in the middle of fields. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in China found that the survival of marsh fritillary caterpillars in grass margins around lightly cultivated fields was lower, but survival of egg clusters similar, to in uncultivated, grazed meadows. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in China found that grass margins around lightly cultivated fields were more likely to be occupied by marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars than uncultivated, grazed meadows. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that meadow brown butterflies used grass margins in a similar way to meadows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3982https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3982Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:38:08 +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