Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant dedicated floral resources on farmlandFourteen trials in Europe and North America have recorded substantial numbers of wild bees foraging on perennial or annual sown flowering plants in the agricultural environment. Ten trials (eight replicated) have monitored bees foraging on patches sown with a high proportion of phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia on farmland and all but one found substantial numbers of foraging wild (non-Apis) bees, particularly bumblebees Bombus spp. Six of these trials recorded the number of foraging bee species, which ranged from eight to 35. One replicated trial shows that phacelia is not very attractive to wild bees in Greece. One replicated controlled trial in the UK showed that planted perennial leguminous herbs, including clovers, were more attractive to bumblebees in landscapes with a greater proportion of arable farming. Four replicated trials have quantified the wider response of wild bee populations to planted flower patches by measuring reproductive success, numbers of nesting bees or numbers foraging in the surrounding landscape. One trial showed that planted patches of bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus in commercial apple orchards in Novia Scotia, Canada, significantly enhanced the reproductive success of blue orchard mason bees Osmia lignaria. One trial in the Netherlands showed that bee numbers and species richness are not higher in farmland 50-1,500 m away from planted flower patches. Two trials in Germany found no or relatively few species of solitary bee nesting on set-aside fields sown with phacelia or clover respectively. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F17https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F17Thu, 20 May 2010 20:02:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees (not farm woodland)We have captured no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F76https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F76Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:08:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) Three replicated, controlled and randomized studies from the Netherlands, Poland and the UK found that intercropping cabbage with French beans or clover resulted in increased ground beetle abundance. A trial from Switzerland found increased earthworm abundance in a maize plot immediately followed by a rye grass crop. A review found ground beetle numbers were enhanced by intercropping relative to single crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F124https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F124Tue, 01 Nov 2011 21:30:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no evidence for the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F185https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F185Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:00:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips for birds Two replicated and controlled studies from the UK (one randomised) and a European review out of seven studies captured found that more birds used nectar/wildflower strips than crops or land under other management. Two studies of a replicated and controlled experiment in the UK found that no more birds used nectar/wildflower strips in winter than used land under other management. A replicated, controlled study from Switzerland found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis were more likely to nest in patches of fields sown with annual weeds than in crops, and were less likely to abandon nests in these patches. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that field margin management affected their use by birds more than the seed mix used on them. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F189Sat, 16 Jun 2012 19:33:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grass buffer strips/margins around arable or pasture fields for birds One replicated controlled study from the USA found that there were more species in fields bordered by margins than unbordered fields. Two replicated studies from the UK, one with paired sites, found no effect of field margins on species richness. A replicated, controlled study from the UK found that more birds and more species used sown strips in fields than the fields themselves, but even more used field margins. Nine studies from the UK and USA, seven replicated, two controlled, found more positive population trends, higher populations or strong habitat associations for some or all species for sites with grass margins to fields. One study investigated multiple interventions. Three replicated studies from the UK found that grass field margins did not have a positive effect on populations of some or all bird species investigated. Both studies that examined habitat use (one replicated, both from the UK) found that species used margins more than other habitats. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that birds used cut margins more than uncut margins during winter but less than other management regimes during summer. The authors argue that management type is more important than the seed mix used to sow the margins. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix had smaller broods in grass margins than other habitat types. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F191Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:39:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping)A study from the USA found that 35 species of bird used fields with intercropping, with four nesting, but that productivity from the fields was very low. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F209https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F209Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:42:11 +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: Plant nesting cover to reduce nest predation We found no evidence of planting nesting cover to reduce nest predation for 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%2F405https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F405Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:01:47 +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: Plant nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields We found no evidence for the effects of planting nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1431Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:54:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree communities in clear-cut areas One site comparison study in Kenya found that two out of three primate species had lower group densities in planted forests than in natural forests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not necessarily resemble original community) in clear-cut areas We found no evidence for the effects of planting indigenous fast-growing trees in clear-cut areas on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1586Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:09:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant individual plants One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that planting California sagebrush plants did not increase the cover of native plant species compared to sowing of seeds or a combination of planting and sowing seeds. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in South Africa found that planting Brownanthus pseudoschlichtianus plants increased plant cover, but not the number of plant species. One study in the USA found that a majority of planted plants survived after one year. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1697Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:55:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant gardens with night-scented flowers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting gardens with night-scented flowers 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%2F1932https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1932Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:35:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant field margins with a diverse mix of plant species One study evaluated the effects of planting field margins with a diverse mix of plant species on bats populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that the activity (relative abundance) of soprano pipistrelles and barbastelle bats increased with a greater diversity of plant species within field margins, but there was no effect on common pipistrelle activity nor on the occurrence of any of the six bat species studied. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1941Tue, 04 Dec 2018 09:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant in-field trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field trees 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%2F1946https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1946Tue, 04 Dec 2018 10:04:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting crops to provide supplementary food. Two studies were in the USA, one was in the UK and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study), in the UK and Spain, found that crops grown to provide food for wildlife resulted in a higher abundance of small mammals in winter, but not in summer and increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) held higher overwintering mule deer abundance relative to barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that mule deer consumed triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) more than they did barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by lagomorphs and rodents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2394Thu, 28 May 2020 10:07:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant grassland plants Four studies examined the effects of planting grassland plants on grassland vegetation. One study was in each of the UK, Germany and the USA. One review included studies from the UK and Australia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (2 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting seedlings in addition to sowing seeds increased the number of plant species compared to sowing seeds alone. Grass richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that planting plants increased species richness of grasses in 50% of cases. Forb richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that planting plants increased species richness of forbs in 83% of cases. Native/non-target richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that planting plants in addition to sowing seeds increased the number of native plant species compared to sowing seeds alone. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (2 STUDIES) Individual plant species abundance (1 study): One study in Germany found that transplanted pepper saxifrage plants increased in number and spread to adjacent grassland. Sown/planted species abundance (1 study): One review in the UK and Australia found that planting grassland plants had mixed effects on planted species abundance. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One study in Germany found that 44% of new seedlings from transplanted pepper saxifrage plants survived over four months. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3399Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:56:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant native species for reptile habitat in urban areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting native species for reptile habitat in urban areas 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%2F3479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3479Fri, 03 Dec 2021 11:53:01 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant native species Two studies evaluated the effects of planting native species on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Occupancy/range (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that an area reseeded and replanted with native vegetation was colonized and abandoned at different times by two snake and one lizard species, and one other lizard species may have remained, but in low numbers. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that grasslands reseeded with both native and non-native grasses were used by Texas horned lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3709https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3709Mon, 13 Dec 2021 13:49:56 +0000Collected 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: Plant in-field trees (e.g. copses) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of planting in-field trees on 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%2F3979https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3979Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:41:45 +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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant more than one crop per field (intercropping) One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of planting more than one crop per field. The study was in Malaysia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not differ in butterfly community composition from those planted with oil palm alone. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not have greater butterfly species richness than those planted with oil palm alone. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Malaysia found that smallholdings planted with oil palm and other crops did not have higher overall butterfly abundance than those planted with oil palm alone. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3983https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3983Sat, 20 Aug 2022 19:18:11 +0100