Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect large native treesA study in degraded savannah in Minas Gerais, Brazil showed that the stingless bee species Melipona quadrifasciata selectively nested in the protected cerrado tree Caryocar brasiliense, evidence that protecting this species from logging or wood harvesting has helped to conserve stingless bees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F34https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F34Thu, 20 May 2010 09:28:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields Two reviews and two replicated controlled trials from the UK found that leaving uncut strips of rye grass on silage fields resulted in benefits to birds including increased numbers. One of these studies found that whilst seed-eating birds preferred rye grass cut once only, birds that fed on different food resources such as insect-eaters showed more variable results with some preferring plots cut two or more times. One replicated controlled randomized study from the UK found no difference in ground beetle abundance and diversity between cut and uncut silage field headlands in the first two years of the experiment, but higher species diversity in uncut plots in the third year. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F132https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F132Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:28:34 +0000Collected 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: Leave unharvested cereal headlands within arable fields We found no evidence for the effects of leaving unharvested cereal headlands within arable fields 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%2F206https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F206Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:11:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots, including lapwing and stone curlew plots Two studies and two reviews examined population-level effects of uncropped margins or plots. A before-and-after study from the UK and two reviews found an increase in Eurasian thick-knee Burhinus oedicnemus numbers following a scheme that promoted plots (amongst other interventions); a replicated study from the UK found no effect of plots on grey partridge density changes. Four studies (three replicated) and a review from the UK found that at least one species was associated with lapwing plots or used them for foraging or nesting. One replicated study from the UK found that 11 species were not associated with plots; another found that fewer birds used the plots than cropland in two out of three UK regions. Two of the three studies that examined productivity (one replicated) found that nesting success of birds was higher in fallow fields or lapwing plots than in crops. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix productivity was not related to the amount of lapwing plots on a site and that the proportion of young partridges in the population was lower on sites with lots of cultivated fallow plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F213https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F213Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:09:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncut rye grass in silage fields for birds Two reviews from the UK found that leaving rye grass uncut, or with only a single cut, benefited seed-eating birds and two replicated, controlled studies from the UK found that seed-eating birds were more abundant on uncut plots. Two replicated and controlled studies and a review, all from the UK, found that seed-eating birds were more abundant on uncut and ungrazed plots than on uncut and grazed plots. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that the responses of non-seed-eating birds were less certain than seed-eaters, with some species avoiding uncut rye grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F224https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F224Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:04:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave unharvested cereal headlands in arable fields We have captured no evidence for the effects on farmland wildlife of leaving unharvested cereal headlands. '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%2F646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F646Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:14:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legal protection of species Three reviews (including one systematic review) in the Netherlands and UK (Bosman et al. 2011, Spitzen-van der Sluijs et al. 2011, Lewis 2012) found that legal protection of amphibian species was not effective at protecting populations during development. Two reviews in the UK (Edgar et al. 2005, Lewis 2012) found that the number of great crested newt mitigation licences issued over 10 years increased to over 600 in England and Wales. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F779https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F779Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:46:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legal protection of forests Two site comparison studies in Nigeria and Iran found that legal protection of forest increased tree species richness and diversity and the density of young trees. One replicated, paired site study in Mexico found no effect of forest protection on seed density and diversity of trees and shrubs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1233Mon, 23 May 2016 11:25:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat around shrubland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting shrubland habitat around shrubland on shrublands. 'We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1675https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1675Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:22:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect peatlands Five studies evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of legally protecting them: two of tropical peat swamp forest, two of unspecified peatlands and one of a bog. Peatland habitat (3 studies): Two studies in Indonesia reported that peat swamp forest was lost from within the boundaries of national parks. However, one of these studies was a site comparison and reported that forest loss was greater outside the national park. One before-and-after study of peatlands in China reported that peatland area initially decreased, but then increased, following legal protection. Plant community composition (1 study): One before-and-after study in a bog in Denmark reported that the plant community compositon changed over 161 years of protection. In particular, woody plants became more abundant. Vegetation cover (1 study): One site comparison study in a peatland in Chile found that a protected area had greater vegetation cover (total, herbs and shrubs) than an adjacent grazed and moss-harvested area. Overall plant richness/diversity (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Denmark reported that the number of plant species in a protected bog fluctuated over time, with no clear trend. One site comparison study in a peatland in Chile found that a protected area had lower plant richness and diversity (but also fewer non-native species) than an adjacent grazed and harvested area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1796https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1796Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:26:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bats during development Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bats by issuing licences during development on bat populations. The four studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Change in human behaviour (2 studies): One review in the UK found that the number of development licences for bats more than doubled over three years in Scotland. One review in the UK found that 81% of licensees did not carry out post-development monitoring to assess whether bats used the roost structures installed. OTHER (3 STUDIES) Impact on bat roost sites (3 studies): One review in the UK found that licenced activities during building developments had a negative impact on bat roosts, with 68% of roosts being destroyed. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that five of 28 compensation roosts provided under licence were used, and two by similar or greater numbers of bats after development. One review in the UK found that 31–67% of compensation roosts provided under licence were used by bats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1935Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:50:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bat species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat species on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2037https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2037Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:29:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect bat habitats Five studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting bat habitats on bat populations. Four studies were in Europe and one was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in India found that the composition of bat species was similar in protected forest and unprotected forest fragments. Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison or paired sites studies in Europe and India found that the number of bat species did not differ between protected and unprotected forests or forest fragments. One replicated, site comparison study in France found that protected sites had a greater number of bat species than unprotected sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of Daubenton’s bats was higher over rivers on farms in protected areas than in unprotected areas. One replicated, paired sites study in Europe found that the activity of common noctule bats was higher in protected forests than unprotected forests, but bat activity overall did not differ. Two replicated, site comparison studies in France and India found higher overall bat activity, higher activity of three of six bat species/species groups and a greater number of bats in protected sites and forests than unprotected sites and forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One study in Spain found that the distributions of 10 of 11 bat species overlapped with areas designated to protect them significantly more than by chance. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2045Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:34:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave utility and service lines in place after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving utility and service lines in place after decommissioning on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2085https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2085Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:51:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for mammals Seven studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for mammals. One study each was in Zambia, the USA, Tanzania, Brazil, Nepal and India and one was a systematic review of sites with a wide geographic spread. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): A systematic review of protected areas across the globe found that 24 of 31 studies reported an increase in mammal populations in protected areas relative to unprotected areas. Three studies (including two site comparison studies), in Zambia, the USA and Nepal, found that populations of red lechwe, black bears and one-horned rhinoceros grew following site protection or were higher than in adjacent non-protected sites. One of three site comparison studies, in Tanzania, Brazil and India, found that populations of more mammal species increased inside protected areas than in adjacent unprotected areas. One study found that populations of only three of 11 species were higher on protected than on unprotected land whilst the third study found that 13 of 16 species were less abundant in a protected area than in a nearby unprotected area. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2559Tue, 09 Jun 2020 11:56:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect areas where climate change impacts are predicted to be less severe We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting areas where climate change impacts are predicted to be less severe on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2912https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2912Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:22:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat for marine and freshwater mammals Four studies evaluated the effects of legally protecting habitat for marine and freshwater mammals. One study was in each of the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal), the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand), the North Sea (UK) and the Port River estuary (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that a population of Mediterranean monk seals increased during eight years after the islands they inhabited were legally protected. One before-and-after study in the North Sea found that a population of bottlenose dolphins was estimated to be a similar size before and after part of its range was protected. Survival (2 studies): One before-and-after study in the South Pacific Ocean found that the survival rate of Hector’s dolphins was higher after a coastal area was legally protected than before. One before-and-after study in the Port River estuary found that after the area became legally protected a similar number of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin strandings were recorded compared to before protection, but the number of strandings caused by humans decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2915Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:29:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect marine and freshwater mammal species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting marine and freshwater mammal species. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2923https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2923Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:38:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave/maintain/restore strips of undisturbed habitat between solar arrays We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving/maintaining/restoring strips of undisturbed habitat between solar arrays on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3494Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:07:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave woody debris in forests after logging Six studies evaluated the effects of leaving woody debris in forests after logging on reptile populations. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the richness of reptile species, or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile species richness than areas where debris was cleared and burned. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect reptile species diversity or overall reptile and amphibian species diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five studies (including three replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in the USA found that leaving or removing woody debris did not affect the abundance of reptiles, snakes, snakes and lizards or immigrating reptiles. The other study found that areas where woody debris was left in place had higher reptile abundance than areas where debris was cleared and burned. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3632Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:36:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitat Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of legally protecting habitat. Six studies were in the UK and one was in each of Australia, Singapore and Ireland and the USA. Three of the studies used data from the same national monitoring scheme across different years. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Singapore found that protected primary or secondary forest reserves had a higher species richness of butterflies than unprotected forest fragments. One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Ireland reported that raised bogs protected as Special Areas of Conservation (where restoration had sometimes taken place) had a similar species richness of moths to unprotected bogs. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that, in the first three years after protection as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), woodland, grassland and heathland sites lost a similar proportion of 29 threatened butterfly species to unprotected sites. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Three of five site comparison studies (including four replicated studies and one before-and-after study) in the UK and Ireland found that sites protected as National Nature Reserves or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (in one case also managed by coppicing), or surrounded by SSSIs, had a higher abundance of heath fritillary, all butterflies and 30/57 species of butterfly than unprotected sites. However, one of these studies only found the result using one of two sets of sites. The other two studies found that grasslands protected as National Nature Reserves or SSSIs and raised bogs protected as Special Areas of Conservation had a similar total abundance of moths, and change in abundance of chalkhill blue butterflies, to unprotected sites. However, one of these studies found mixed results for individual moth species. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that, at sites with the highest levels of protection, abundances of Karner blue, frosted elfin and Persius duskywing did not change over time, whereas they decreased at sites with lower levels of protection. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that protected grasslands assessed as being in “Favourable” habitat condition had worse population trends for 4/8 butterfly species but better for 1/8 species than grasslands in “Unfavourable” condition. One study in Australia reported that after a grassland was designated as a local reserve, populations of golden sun-moth and pale sun-moth persisted for at least four years. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3831Mon, 04 Jul 2022 13:36:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect butterflies and moths We found no studies that evaluated the effects of legally protecting butterflies and moths. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3863https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3863Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:54:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect large native trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of legally protecting large native trees. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3865https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3865Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:58:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave unharvested crop headlands within arable fields One study evaluated the effects of leaving unharvested crop headlands within arable fields. This study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that unharvested alfalfa headlands had a greater species richness of butterflies than harvested alfalfa or wheat fields. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in France found that unharvested alfalfa headlands had a higher abundance of butterflies than harvested alfalfa or wheat fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3924https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3924Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:02:01 +0100