Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide set-aside areas in farmland Two replicated trials showed that species richness of bees nesting (one study) or foraging (one study), is higher on set-aside that is annually mown and left to naturally regenerate for two years or more, relative to other set-aside management regimes or, in the nesting study, to arable crop fields. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F7https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F7Thu, 20 May 2010 21:22:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide red squirrel feeders We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing red squirrel feeders 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%2F82https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F82Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:21:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide otter holts We have captured no evidence for the effects of providing otter holts 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%2F83https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F83Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide short grass for birds A replicated UK study found that common starlings and northern lapwing spent more time foraging on short grass, compared to longer grass, and that starlings captured more prey in short grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F115Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:15:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide other resources for birds (water, sand for bathing) A small study in France found that grey partridge density was higher in areas where a combination of supplementary food, water, shelter and sand for bathing were provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F117Tue, 01 Nov 2011 20:37:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during harvest or mowing Three studies examined the effect of providing refuges for birds during harvest or mowing in France and the UK. One replicated study in France found evidence that providing refuges during mowing reduced contact between mowing machinery and unfledged quail and corncrakes. However one replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that Eurasian skylark did not use nesting refuges more than other areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F147Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:49:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide owl nest boxes (Tawny owl, Barn owl) Two studies from the UK (a before-and-after study and a controlled study) found that the provision of owl nest boxes in farm buildings maintained barn owl nesting and roosting activity and resulted in an increase in population density. A study from the Netherlands found that the barn owl population increased with increased availability of nest boxes. A replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile barn owls fledged from nest boxes were significantly less likely to be recovered alive than those reared in church towers. A replicated study from the UK investigating barn owl nest site use, found that the number of occupied nest sites and the proportion breeding decreased from 2001 to 2009, but were unaffected by the number of boxes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F154Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:38:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips Four replicated studies from Canada and the USA found that wider buffer strips retained a bird community more similar to that of uncut forest than narrower strips. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that several forest-specialist species were absent from buffers up to 70 m wide. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that richness was higher in buffers <100 m wide, compared to wider strips or forest. A replicated, controlled study in the USA (6) found that thinned buffer strips had lower abundances of forest species than unthinned strips, but higher abundances of early successional species. A replicated study from the USA (4) found that species richness was similar between 20–50 m buffers and original forest. A replicated study from the USA found that bird abundances were higher in 20–50 m wide buffer strips than in original forest. A replicated study in the USA found no differences in productivity of birds nests between buffer strips wider than 350 m, compared to those thinner than 250 m. Whilst a replicated, controlled study from the USA found that predation of artificial nests was significantly higher in buffer strips compared with continuous forest, but that there was no diffrerence between narrow and wide buffers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161Tue, 15 May 2012 14:59:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges for fish within pondsA controlled cross-over trial in the UK found that great cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo foraging success was lower in a pond with artificial refuges, compared to a control pond. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F253https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F253Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:49:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit the extent of disturbanceA before-and-after study from the UK found that two species of wader nested closer to a path, or at higher densities near the path, following resurfacing, which resulted in far fewer people leaving the path. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F311Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:34:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter habitat We found no evidence for the effects of providing shelter habitat on amphibian 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%2F807https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F807Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:03:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paraffin stoves We found no evidence for the effects of providing paraffin stoves on forests. '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%2F1184https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1184Thu, 19 May 2016 11:40:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide sacrificial rows of crops on outer side of fields We found no evidence for the effects of providing sacrificial rows of crops on the outer side of 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%2F1427https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1427Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:48:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide salt licks for primates We found no evidence for the effects of providing salt licks for primates 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%2F1525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1525Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:40:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland 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%2F1937https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1937Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:17:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide paths to limit extent of disturbance to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing paths to limit the extent of disturbance to mammals. ‘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%2F2337https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2337Thu, 21 May 2020 15:21:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377Wed, 27 May 2020 08:48:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide refuges during crop harvesting or mowing We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing refuges during crop harvesting or mowing. ‘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%2F2389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2389Thu, 28 May 2020 09:02:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter structures after fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing shelter structures after fire. ‘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%2F2418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2418Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:03:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. ‘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%2F2424https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2424Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland 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%2F3520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3520Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:46:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide reptiles with escape routes from canals, drains and ditches We found no studies that evaluated the effects on their populations of providing reptiles with escape routes from canals drains and ditches. ‘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%2F3788https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3788Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:32:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide rewards (monetary or non-monetary) for reporting injured or entangled reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects of providing rewards for reporting injured or entangled reptiles on their 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%2F3789https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3789Wed, 15 Dec 2021 16:33:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter habitat against highly adverse weather conditions We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of providing shelter habitat against highly adverse weather conditions. ‘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%2F3860https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3860Tue, 05 Jul 2022 15:33:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set‐aside areas in farmland Nine studies evaluated the effects of providing or retaining set-aside areas in farmland on butterflies and moths. Three studies were in the UK, and one was in each of Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, Hungary, Finland and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that butterfly communities in older set-aside fields included species which were less migratory, spent longer as caterpillars, and had fewer generations/year than species found in newer set-aside fields. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and three site comparison studies) in Germany, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that sown or naturally regenerating set-aside had a greater species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths than cereal fields or pasture, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly species richness between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other study found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to arable and pasture fields. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar species richness of butterflies to native prairies. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and four site comparison studies) in the UK, Ireland, Hungary and Finland found that the abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in sown set-aside was higher than in cereal fields, especially when the set-aside was sown with less competitive grasses. One of these studies found a higher abundance of butterflies and day-flying moths in second-year set-aside than in first-year set-aside, but another found no difference in butterfly abundance between 1–3-year-old set-aside. The other three studies found that fallow and stubble set-aside had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and butterfly and moth caterpillars to arable fields and pasture. Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in the UK and Switzerland found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterfly and moth adults and caterpillars to uncultivated field boundaries and extensively farmed land. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that set-aside fields had a similar abundance of butterflies to native prairies in their first year, but a lower abundance of butterflies thereafter. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3980Thu, 18 Aug 2022 10:53:43 +0100