Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate bumblebee colonies in nest boxesWe have captured three small trials in the 1950s and early 1960s testing the effect of translocating bumblebee colonies in nest boxes. Two trials in Canada provided evidence of queen death and one of these showed lower colony productivity following translocation. Just one, a UK trial, concluded that early bumblebee Bombus pratorum colonies adapt well to being moved. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F53https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F53Thu, 20 May 2010 01:34:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce laboratory-reared bumblebee colonies to the wildSeven replicated trials have monitored the success of laboratory-reared colonies of bumblebees introduced to the environment. In four of the trials (three in the UK, one in Canada) colonies were left to develop until new queens were produced or the founding queen died. In two of these (both in the UK), the numbers of queens/colony were very low or zero. In two trials, good numbers of new queens were produced. Rates of social parasitism by cuckoo bees Bombus [Psithyrus] spp. in colonies released to the wild are variable. Two replicated trials in Canada and the UK found high rates (25-66% and 79% respectively). The UK trial showed that parasitism was reduced by placing colonies in landscapes with intermediate rather than very high nectar and pollen availability, late, rather than early in the season. Five other replicated trials reported no social parasites. We have not found evidence to compare rates of parasitism in artificial nest boxes with the rate in natural nests. Two replicated trials examined the effects of supplementary feeding for bumblebee colonies placed in the field. One, in Canada, found supplementary feeding improved the reproductive success of captive-reared colonies, but did not reduce their parasite load. The other trial, in the USA, found supplementary feeding did not increase colony productivity. One small scale trial in Norway showed that colonies of the buff-tailed bumblebee B. terrestris prefer to forage more than 100 m from their nest sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F52https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F52Thu, 20 May 2010 02:59:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bee ecology and conservation We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing training on bee ecology and conservation to conservationists and land managers. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F58https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F58Thu, 20 May 2010 09:03:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce laboratory-reared bumblebee queens to the wild We have found no evidence for the effects of reintroducing bumblebee queens. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F51https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F51Thu, 20 May 2010 10:18:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate solitary beesOne replicated trial in India showed that translocating carpenter bees Xylocopa fenestrata in immature stages can establish a population at a new site, but if adult bees are translocated a very small proportion remain at the new site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F55https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F55Thu, 20 May 2010 11:18:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce mated females to small populations to improve genetic diversityOne trial in Brazil showed that genetic diversity can be maintained in small isolated populations of stingless bees Melipona scutellaris by regularly introducing inseminated queens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F56https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F56Thu, 20 May 2010 15:23:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We have captured no evidence for the effects of campaigning or raising awareness about bees and their conservation. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F59https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F59Thu, 20 May 2010 16:10:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rear and manage populations of solitary beesSeveral species of solitary bee in the family Megachilidae are reared and managed commercially as pollinators, mostly for the forage crop alfalfa, or fruit trees. These species readily nest in drilled wooden blocks, or stacked grooved boards of wood or polystyrene. Parasites and pathogens can be problematic and a number of control methods have been developed. Rearing methods have been investigated for two other species not yet commercially managed and one replicated trial shows that temperature regimes are important to survival. If rearing for conservation purposes is to be attempted, we would recommend a systematic review of these methods. Three management trials with megachilids not commercially managed in the USA or Poland, and a review of studies of managed species, found that local populations can increase up to six-fold in one year under management if conditions are good and plentiful floral resources are provided. Two replicated trials have reared solitary bees on artificial diets. One found high larval mortality in Osmia cornuta reared on artificial pollen-based diets, including honey bee-collected pollen. The other found Megachile rotundata could be reared on an artificial diet based on honey bee-collected pollen, but bees reared on synthetic pollen substitutes either died or had low pre-pupal weight. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F54https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F54Thu, 20 May 2010 18:24:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance bee taxonomy skills through higher education and training We have captured no evidence for the effects of developing taxonomy skills on bee conservation. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F57https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F57Thu, 20 May 2010 20:44:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Distribute poison bait for predator control using dispensersA controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of South Island robins Petroica australis australis was higher when brodifacoum was dispensed from bait feeders compared to where bait was scattered.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157Tue, 15 May 2012 12:37:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitats Four studies (two replicated) from Europe found population increases following habitat protection, more positive population trends in protected habitats, compared with outside, or with increases amounts of protected habitats. A literature review reported that a large number of cranes (Gruidae) of seven species used nature reserves in China, whilst a replicated, randomised and controlled study from Argentina found that some guilds of birds were found at higher species richnesses in protected forests, some at higher densities, and that some showed no differences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158Tue, 15 May 2012 13:48:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents on baits for predator control A replicated, randomised and controlled experiment in the USA found that methyl anthanilate and aminoacetophenone did not reduce consumption of baits by American kestrels Falco sparverius. A replicated, randomised and controlled experiment in New Zealand found that treating baits with pulegone or Avex™ reduced pecking rates in North Island robins Petroica australis longipes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F159https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F159Tue, 15 May 2012 13:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure connectivity between habitat patches A replicated, controlled study in Canada found significantly higher abundances of some birds, but not forest specialists, in forest patches connected to a continuous area of forest, than in isolated patches. Another study of the same system found evidence that corridors were used by some bird species more than clearcuts between patches, although corridors near cut forest were not used more than those near uncut stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160Tue, 15 May 2012 14:47:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips Four replicated studies from Canada and the USA found that wider buffer strips retained a bird community more similar to that of uncut forest than narrower strips. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that several forest-specialist species were absent from buffers up to 70 m wide. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that richness was higher in buffers <100 m wide, compared to wider strips or forest. A replicated, controlled study in the USA (6) found that thinned buffer strips had lower abundances of forest species than unthinned strips, but higher abundances of early successional species. A replicated study from the USA (4) found that species richness was similar between 20–50 m buffers and original forest. A replicated study from the USA found that bird abundances were higher in 20–50 m wide buffer strips than in original forest. A replicated study in the USA found no differences in productivity of birds nests between buffer strips wider than 350 m, compared to those thinner than 250 m. Whilst a replicated, controlled study from the USA found that predation of artificial nests was significantly higher in buffer strips compared with continuous forest, but that there was no diffrerence between narrow and wide buffers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161Tue, 15 May 2012 14:59:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public informationA review of programmes in the USA and Canada argues that education was not sufficient to change behaviour, although it was necessary as a catalytic factor for economic incentives and law enforcement.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162Sat, 19 May 2012 19:59:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bird feeding materials to families with young childrenA single replicated before-and-after study from the USA found that most children involved in a programme providing families with bird food increased their knowledge of birds, but there was no significant change in environmental attitudes.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F163Sat, 19 May 2012 20:07:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher education and training We found no evidence for the effects of enhancing bird taxonomy skills on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F164Sat, 19 May 2012 20:10:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bird ecology and conservation We captured no published evidence on the effects of general awareness campaigns and public information on the state of bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F165Sat, 19 May 2012 20:12:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Angle windows to reduce collisions by birdsA single randomised, replicated and controlled experiment in the USA found fewer birds collided with windows angled away from the vertical.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F166Sat, 19 May 2012 20:14:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark or tint windows to reduce collision mortality Two randomised, replicated and controlled studies (one ex situ) found that marking windows did not appear to reduce bird collisions. However, when windows were largely covered with white cloth, fewer birds flew towards them. A randomised, replicated and controlled study found that fewer birds collided with tinted windows than with un-tinted ones, although the authors noted that the poor reflective quality of the glass could have influenced the results. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F167https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F167Sat, 19 May 2012 20:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems We captured no evidence for the effects of supporting low-intensity agricultural systems on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F168Sun, 20 May 2012 13:05:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practice integrated farm management We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of practicing integrated farm management on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming We captured no evidence for the effects of food labelling schemes on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F170Sun, 20 May 2012 13:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape Of four studies captured, one, a replicated and controlled paired sites study from Australia, found that farms with plantings of native vegetation held more species than those without. The effect was smaller than that explained by variation in the amount of natural habitat remaining on farms. A replicated study from Switzerland found more species in areas under the Ecological Compensation Area scheme than areas not under it. A before-and-after study from Switzerland found that the populations of three bird species increased after an increase in the amount of land under the Ecological Compensation Scheme. This study found that three species were more found more than expected on Ecological Compensation Scheme land. Another replicated study from Switzerland found that some habitats held more birds if they were close to ECA habitat but that the amount of Ecological Compensation Scheme in an area had no impact on population densities. A small study from the UK found no effect of habitat creation on grey partridge populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review, examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100