Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting brassica fodder crops (grazed in situ) on farmland wildlife. '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%2F92https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F92Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:35:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops in spring rather than autumn A total of nine studies from Denmark, Sweden and the UK looked at the effects of sowing crops in spring or autumn on farmland wildlife. Five studies (including one replicated controlled trial, and a review) found that planting crops in spring rather than autumn resulted in higher numbers of farmland birds, weed diversity or weed density and one arable weed species produced more fruit on spring-sown crops. A review found one study from the UK showing that four out of five species of arable weed produced more fruits on autumn-sown crops. A second review found one study showing that there were more invertebrates in winter wheat than spring wheat. A replicated study from the UK found that winter and spring sown crops were used for different broods by Eurasian skylarks. A replicated site comparison found arthropod abundance was higher in autumn barley in early summer and spring barley in late summer. A replicated, controlled study in Sweden, found that northern lapwings nested on spring-sown crops more than expected based on their availability, but hatching success on spring crops was lower than on autumn crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F137https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F137Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:36:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals for whole crop silage Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) from the UK investigated the effects of cereal-based whole crop silage. One replicated study found that cereal-based whole crop silage fields were used more by farmland birds and supported a higher abundance of seed-eating songbirds, swallows and martins than other crop types. The same study also found that important bird food plants were more abundant in cereals than other crop types and more invertebrates were found in wheat, barley and grass silage fields compared to maize. A review found one study in which cereal-based whole crop silage fields were avoided by seed-eating birds during winter, but used as much as a control during summer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F149https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F149Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:59:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that planting cereals in wide-spaced rows “offered benefits over conventional wheat for Eurasian skylarks, but details were not given. Another replicated and controlled study from the UK found that fields with wide-spaced rows had fewer skylark nests than control or skylark plot fields. A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that the faecal content (and therefore diet) of skylark nestlings was similar between control fields and those with wide-spaced rows.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F216Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals for whole crop silageA replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that seed-eating birds used CBWCS fields, especially those planted with barley, more than other crops in both summer and winter. Insect-eating species used other crops and grassland more.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F225Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:12:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant Brassica fodder crops We found no evidence on the effects of planting brassicas 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%2F231https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F231Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:51:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests with individual exclosures/barriers or provide shelters for chicks of waders Three of 13 studies from the USA found higher productivity from nests protected by individual barriers than unprotected nests. Two studies from the USA and Sweden found no higher productivity from protected nests. Eight studies from the USA and Europe found higher hatching rates, or survival, or low predation of nests protected by individual barriers, although two of these found that higher hatching rates did not result in higher productivity. Two small studies from North America found no differences in predation or survival rates between protected and unprotected nests. A meta-analysis from the USA found that there were differences in the effectiveness of different exclosure designs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F398Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:32:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place feeders close to windows to reduce collisionsA randomised, replicated and controlled experiment in the USA found that placing bird feeders close to windows reduced the number of collisions with the windows and the number of fatal collisions.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F557Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:13:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant cereals in wide-spaced rows One replicated, controlled randomized study and four reports from the same replicated, controlled study in the UK investigated the effects of planting cereals in wide-spaced rows on birds, invertebrates and plants. Both studies found no or inconsistent differences in plant and invertebrate abundance and/or species richness between wide-spaced row and control fields. The replicated controlled study found higher undesirable weed cover, and one study found no significant difference in weed cover in fields with wide-spaced rows compared to control fields. One study found significantly lower invertebrate abundances and fewer Eurasian skylark nests in wide-spaced row fields than control fields or fields with undrilled patches. However it also found an increase in the body condition of nestlings over the breeding season in wide-spaced row fields compared with control fields.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F564Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:47:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of planted trees We found no evidence for the effect of planting a mixture of tree species to enhance the survival and growth of planted trees. '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%2F1159https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1159Wed, 18 May 2016 15:37:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant a mixture of tree species to enhance diversity One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Brazil found that planting various tree species increased species richness, but had no effect on the density of new trees. One replicated, controlled study in Greece found that planting native tree species increased total plant species richness, diversity and cover.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1243Fri, 03 Jun 2016 10:43:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops favoured by primates away from primate areas We found no evidence for the effects of planting crops favoured by primates away from primate areas on 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%2F1440https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1440Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:49:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place signs to deter gathering of shrubland species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing signs to deter gathering of shrubland 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%2F1613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1613Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:28:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants Three studies evaluated the effects on peatland vegetation of removing problematic plants. All three studies were in fens. Characteristic plants (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen in Ireland reported that cover of fen-characteristic plants increased after mossy vegetation was removed. Herb cover (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in fens in the Netherlands and Ireland reported mixed effects of moss removal on herb cover after 2–5 years. Results varied between species or between sites, and sometimes depended on other treatments applied to plots (i.e. drainage or isolation from the surrounding bog). Moss cover (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in a fen in Ireland reported that removing the moss carpet reduced total bryophyte and Sphagnum moss cover for three years. Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies in fens in the Netherlands reported that removing the moss carpet had no effect on moss cover (after 2–5 years) in wet plots, but reduced total moss and Sphagnum cover in drained plots. Overall plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in a fen in the Netherlands reported that moss removal increased plant species richness, but only in a drained area. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1768https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1768Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place anthropogenic installations (e.g: windfarms) in an area such that they create artificial habitat and reduce the level of fishing activity We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing anthropogenic installations in an area such that they reduce the level of fishing activity 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%2F2261https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2261Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:51:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents Three studies evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents. One study was in the USA, one was in South Africa and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the USA and Botswana, found that orphaned young black bears and African wild dogs had greater or equal survival compared to animals released alone or young of wild mammals with their biological parents. A study in South Africa found that an orphaned cheetah cub was not accepted by a family of cheetahs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343Fri, 22 May 2020 09:18:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with captive foster parents Two studies evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned wild young with captive foster parents. One study was in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that stranded sea otter pups reared in captivity by foster mothers had higher post-release survival than did unfostered pups reared mostly alone, and similar survival to wild pups. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A study in Canada found that a captive white-tailed deer adopted a wild orphaned fawn. A controlled study in the USA found that stranded sea otter pups reared in captivity by foster mothers began foraging earlier than did unfostered pups reared mostly alone.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2364https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2364Tue, 26 May 2020 15:47:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place captive young with captive foster parents Two studies evaluated the effects of placing captive young mammals with captive foster parents. One study was in the USA and one was in Sweden and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that most captive coyote pups placed with foster parents were successfully reared. A replicated study in Sweden and Norway found that captive grey wolf pups placed with foster parents had higher survival rates than pups that stayed with their biological mother. Condition (1 study): A replicated study in Sweden and Norway found that captive grey wolf pups placed with foster parents weighed less than pups that stayed with their biological mother. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2472Wed, 03 Jun 2020 17:02:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove invasive or problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of physically removing invasive or other problematic species 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%2F2851https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2851Mon, 08 Feb 2021 10:58:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned marine and freshwater mammal young with foster parents We found no studies that evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned marine and freshwater mammal young with foster parents. ‘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%2F2928https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2928Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:07:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater marshes. Three studies were in the USA, one was in India and one was in France. Two of the studies in the USA were in the same site and shared some plots. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that physically removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh altered the overall plant community composition, over the following two years. Overall richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing all vegetation from a cattail-invaded marsh increased overall plant species richness 1–2 years later. Two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in wet meadows in the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no significant effect on overall plant species richness or diversity three years later. One of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst the other controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in a temporary marsh in France reported that stripping all vegetation increased the number of habitat-characteristic plant species present in the following two years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also replicated, randomized, paired, controlled) in freshwater marshes/wet meadows in India and the USA found that physically removing vegetation had no clear or significant effect on overall vegetation cover, nine months or three years later. Two of the studies removed all vegetation, whilst one controlled regrowth of the invasive species (by physical removal along with herbicide application). Herb abundance (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after studies in loosestrife-invaded wet meadows in the USA, one reported that removing all vegetation increased the cover of grass-like plants, and reduced the cover of forbs, three years later. The other study found that controlling regrowth of the invasive species – by physical removal and applying herbicide – had no significant effect on cover of grass-like plants or forbs after three years. Algae/phytoplankton abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of algae nine months later. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species, other than the target problematic species. For example, one before-and-after, site comparison study in India reported that removing all vegetation from a knotgrass-invaded marsh increased the cover of some other common herb species nine months later. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3091Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/salt marshes One study evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from brackish/salt marshes. The study was in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY   VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Native/non-target abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in pepperweed invaded marshes in the USA found that physically removing pepperweed from plots sprayed with herbicide increased cover of native plants, over the following two years, compared to spraying with herbicide only. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study quantified the effect of this action on the cover of individual plant species, other than the target of control (see original paper for data). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3092Sat, 03 Apr 2021 14:59:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2F3093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3093Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically remove problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically removing problematic plants from brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3094https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3094Sat, 03 Apr 2021 15:00:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops in spring rather than autumn We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting crops in spring rather than autumn. ‘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%2F3925https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3925Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:03:02 +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