Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forests Thirteen of 15 studies from across the world found that bird communities in restored forests were similar to original forests or that species returned to restored sites, that species recovered significantly better than ats unrestored site, that species richness, diversity or abundances increased over time or that restoration techniques themselves improved over time. Nine of the studies found that some species did not return to restored sites, or were less common than in original forests. One study also found that overall territory density decreased over time and another found that territory densities were similar between sites planted with oak Quercus spp. saplings and unplanted sites. One study from the USA found that productivity of birds was similar in restored and natural forests. Another found that productivity was lower. A study from the USA found that fast-growing cottonwood forests less than ten years old held more territories and had higher diversity than similarly-aged oak forests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F360https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F360Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:58:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grasslands Of 23 studies found, three from the USA, Canada and Iceland found that species richness on restored grassland sites was similar to remnant habitats or higher than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomised study from the USA found that bird diversity was lower on restored grassland sites compared to hayfields or pastures, whilst a small American study found that species richness declined at one of two fields restored to grassland from croplands. Three studies from the USA found that target species used restored grasslands. Two studies from the USA found that CRP fields held disproportionate proportions of total bird populations, or that local population trends were correlated with the amount of CRP land in the area. Six studies from the USA and UK found that the abundances or densities of some, or all, species were higher on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, or were comparable to natural habitats. Two studies found lower abundances of species on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, although the authors of one suggest that drought conditions may have confounded the results. Five studies from the USA found that at least some bird species in restored areas of grassland had higher productivities than birds in unrestored areas; similar or higher productivies than natural habitats; or had high enough productivities to sustain populations. Three studies found that productivities were lower in restored areas than unrestored, or that productivities on restored sites were too low to sustain populations. A replicated study from the USA found that older CRP fields held more nests, but fewer species than young fields. Two replicated American studies found no differences in species richness or abundances between CRP fields and riparian filter strips whether they were sown with warm- or cool-season grasses, whilst another found that more grassland specialist species were found on sites sown with non-native species. A replicated study from the USA found no difference in bird densities between sites seeded with redtop grass and those not seeded. A study from Iceland found that very few birds were found on restored sites, unless they were sown with Nootka lupin. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:44:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create traditional water meadows Four out of five before-and-after studies, all from the UK, found that the number of waders and wildfowl on sites increased following the restoration of water meadows. One before-and-after study from Sweden found no increase in northern lapwing population following an increase in the area of managed meadows in the study area. This study also found that restored meadows were used less than expected by breeding lapwings. A before-and-after study from Sweden found that hatching success of northern lapwings were higher on meadows than on spring-sown crops. There were no differences between meadows and autumn-sown crops or grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F363https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F363Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:51:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create shrubland Only one of the four studies captured investigated the effects of shrubland restoration in isolation. This small before-and-after study from the UK found that one or two pairs of northern lapwing bred on an area of restored moorland, whereas none had previously bred in the area. A study from the USA and one from the Azores found that populations of target species (gamebirds and seabirds) increased following shrubland restoration, amongst other interventions. A replicated study from the UK which did not distinguish between several interventions performed found a negative relationship between the combined intervention and the ratio of young-to-old grey partridges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F364https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F364Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:03:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create savannas We found no evidence for the effects of savanna restoration or creation 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%2F365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F365Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:10:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create inland wetlands Of eleven studies captured, 11, from the mainland USA, Guam, Canada and Hawaii, found that birds used artificially restored or created wetlands. Two found that rates of use and species richness were similar or higher than on natural wetlands. One found that use rates were higher than on unrestored wetlands. Three studies from the USA and Puerto Rico found that restored wetlands held lower densities and fewer species of birds than natural wetlands. A replicated study from the USA found that least bittern productivity was similar in restored and natural wetlands. Two replicated studies examined wetland characteristics: one from the USA found that semi-permanent restored wetlands were used more than temporary or seasonal ones. A study from Hawaii found that larger restored wetlands were used more than smaller sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F366https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F366Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:34:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create coastal and intertidal wetlands All six studies found, from the USA and UK, found that target bird species used restored or created wetlands. Two found that numbers and/or diversity were at least as high as in natural wetlands, one that numbers were higher than in unrestored sites. Three found that bird numbers on wetlands increased over time. Two studies from the UK found that songbirds and waders decreased following wetland restoration, whilst a study from the USA found that songbirds were more common on unrestored sites than restored wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F367Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:15:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create kelp forestsA before-and-study in the USA found that the densities of five of the nine bird species analysed increased following kelp forest restoration. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F368https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F368Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:39:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create lagoonsA before-and-after study in the UK found that large numbers of bird species used, and bred, in a newly-created lagoon. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F369https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F369Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:47:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Revegetate gravel pits We found no evidence for the effects of gravel pit revegetation 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%2F370https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F370Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:49:46 +0100