Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles, 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%2F77https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F77Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:09:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain rush pastures We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining rush pastures 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%2F91https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F91Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain lowland heathland We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of maintaining lowland heath 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%2F226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F226Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:31:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain rush pastures We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of maintaining rush pastures 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%2F227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F227Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:32:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland Of 22 studies (including eleven replicated trials, three reviews and a systematic review) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK, 13 identified management regimes that maintained species-rich grassland. Four of these studies were replicated, controlled trials (including two randomized). Nine studies (including two randomized, replicated before-and-after trials) from Switzerland and the UK examined the effectiveness of existing or historical agri-environment schemes: seven testing the effectiveness of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme in England and two testing the effectiveness of the Ecological Compensation Areas scheme in Switzerland. All except one reported mixed results, with the schemes broadly maintaining plant species richness, but being less effective, for example, in enhancing species richness, preserving the highest quality sites, or overcoming the effects of past intensive management. One study found six Environmentally Sensitive Areas were of ‘outstanding’ significance for their lowland grassland, containing >40% of the English resource of a grassland type. A replicated site comparison study found that on average 86% of Swiss Ecological Compensation Area litter meadows were of ‘good ecological quality’ compared with only 20% of hay meadow Ecological Compensation Areas. Twelve studies (including a systematic review, six replicated trials of which two also controlled and randomized, and three reviews) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK tested the effects of management treatments on species richness or vegetation quality usually involving combinations of mowing, grazing or no fertilizer but some also tested the effectiveness of mulching or burning. All of these studies identified management treatments which benefited or maintained species richness or vegetation quality. One site comparison from Finland and northwest Russia found that butterfly species richness, diversity and total abundance did not differ significantly between mown meadows and grazed pastures and that grassland age and origin had a greater impact on butterfly communities than present management. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F702Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:44:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore hedges We found no evidence for the effects of maintaining or restoring of hedges 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%2F790https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F790Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:33:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain ephemeral ponds Studies investigating the effects of regulating water levels or deepening ponds are discussed in ‘Threat: Natural system modifications – Regulate water levels’ and ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds’. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F805Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:02:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining forest and woodland edges for foraging bats 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%2F992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F992Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:33:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining 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%2F1610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1610Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:24:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors 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%2F1617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1617Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:52:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain bat roosts in road/railway bridges and culverts Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining bat roosts within road bridges on bat populations. One study was in Ireland and one in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One before-and-after study in Ireland found that a maternity colony of Daubenton’s bats continued to roost in a road bridge over a river in similar numbers after crevices were retained during repair work. One review in the USA found that when bat roosts were maintained during bridge replacement works, Yuma myotis and Mexican free-tailed bats recolonised most roosts in similar numbers to before the works, but pallid bats did not return. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1966https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1966Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:03:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a lakeshore marsh in the USA reported that following a drawdown of water levels, emergent vegetation coverage increased in areas that were previously open water. Community types (1 study): One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in Canada reported changes in the area of some vegetation classes over three years of partial drawdown. There was a temporary increase in coverage of dead vegetation at the expense of some live vegetation classes. Two classes – horsetail-dominated and bur-reed-dominated – had greater coverage after three years of drawdown than before. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3030https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3030Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:20:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes. ‘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%2F3031https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3031Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:20:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore degraded freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore degraded 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%2F3032https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3032Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:20:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore degraded brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore degraded 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%2F3033https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3033Wed, 31 Mar 2021 15:20:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses or habitat types. One study was in the USA and one was in the Netherlands. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study of a freshwater wetland in the USA reported that following a drawdown of water levels, emergent vegetation coverage increased in areas that were previously open water. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study at the edge of a freshwater lake in the Netherlands reported that following a drawdown of the lake water level, vegetation cover developed in areas that were previously open water. Cover varied between years and elevations. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3202https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3202Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:46:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land uses or habitat types. ‘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%2F3203https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3203Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:47:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses or habitat types. ‘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%2F3204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3204Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:47:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Lower water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of lowering the water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land uses or habitat types. ‘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%2F3205https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3205Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:47:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain dams or water impoundments One study evaluated the effects of maintaining dams or water impoundments on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that after sediment removal, or dam maintenance along with sediment removal, one water impoundment was still used by Sonoran mud turtles and a second was not used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3667Fri, 10 Dec 2021 11:22:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland Nineteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining species-rich, semi-natural grassland. Five studies were in Germany, four were in the USA, two were in each of Switzerland and the Czech Republic, and one was in each of Finland and Russia, China, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Austria. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Community composition (6 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany found that the community composition of butterflies, day-flying moths and nocturnal moths was different between summer cattle-grazed, early-mown and late-mown grassland, between mown and grazed grassland, and between prairies managed by cattle grazing and/or rotational burning. However, one of these studies found that the community composition of butterflies was similar in mown and grazed grassland. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Czech Republic and Germany found that species-rich grassland managed by grazing or mowing had a similar community composition of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that meadows managed by mowing at least twice/year after mid-June had a different community composition of butterflies to sown wildflower strips. Richness/diversity (11 studies): Three of six site comparison studies (including five replicated studies) in Germany, the USA, Russia and Finland, Italy and the Czech Republic found that the species richness of butterflies was similar on semi-natural grassland managed by light grazing or by annual mowing in July or August, and on prairies managed by cattle grazing and/or rotational burning. One study found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in grassland managed by sheep and cattle grazing than in grassland mown annually for hay in June. One study found that the species richness of moths was higher in grassland managed by annual mowing than grassland managed by grazing, and the species richness of butterflies was highest in grasslands where mowing was staggered throughout the year, with some areas left uncut. The sixth study found that in some areas, the species richness of specialist and grassland butterflies was higher in prairies managed by two-year rotational haying, and in other areas it was higher in prairies managed by grazing, but in all cases richness was higher at sites longer after they were last managed. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Germany found that species-rich grasslands managed by summer-grazing, grazing or mowing had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths and nocturnal moths to unmanaged grassland. However, one of these studies also found that grasslands managed by mowing had a lower species richness of nocturnal moths than unmown grassland. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Germany and Hungary found that old meadows mown in July and lightly grazed or annually mown meadows had a higher species richness of adult butterflies and caterpillars than recently established set-aside or cereal crops. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that meadows mown at least twice/year after mid-June had a similar species richness of butterflies to sown wildflower strips. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (16 studies): Five of ten site comparison studies (including nine replicated studies) in Germany, the USA, Russia and Finland, Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic found that semi-natural grasslands had a similar abundance of butterflies generally, and individual species of butterflies and moth caterpillars, when managed by extensive sheep, sheep and goat, cattle or livestock grazing compared to annual or occasional mowing, or rotational mowing or burning. Four of these studies found that grasslands managed by cattle, sheep or livestock grazing had a higher abundance of butterflies generally, and individual species of butterflies and moth caterpillars, than grasslands managed by annual mowing, rotational burning or unmanaged grasslands. Three of these studies found that grasslands managed by haying had a higher abundance of individual butterfly species than grasslands managed by grazing or burning or unmanaged grasslands. Four of these studies found that specific butterfly species and all butterflies were less abundant in mown, grazed or rotationally burned grassland than in unmanaged, rotationally burned or grazed and burned grassland. The ninth study found that in some areas, the abundance of specialist and grassland butterflies was higher in prairies managed by two-year rotational haying or by grazing, but in all cases abundance was higher at sites longer after they were last managed. One of three replicated, site comparison studies in Germany and Switzerland found that traditional hay meadows mown once/year in June or July had a higher abundance of heath fritillary adults and caterpillars than old, abandoned meadows. One study found that summer-grazed or mown grasslands had a higher abundance of farmland butterflies and burnet moths, but a lower abundance of woodland butterflies and burnet moths, than abandoned grasslands. The third study found that mown grasslands had a lower abundance of moths than unmown grasslands, but grazed grasslands had a similar abundance of moths to ungrazed grasslands. Two replicated, site comparison studies in China and Switzerland found that semi-natural grasslands managed by grazing or cutting twice/year after mid-June had a lower abundance of marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars and adult butterflies than ungrazed margins and intercrops or sown wildflower strips. One replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that semi-natural grasslands managed by either light grazing or mowing once/year in May or June had a higher abundance of butterflies than conventional wheat fields. Survival (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in China found that marsh fritillary eggs had a similar survival rate in uncultivated, grazed meadows and cultivated, ungrazed field margins and intercrops, but the survival of caterpillars was higher in the grazed meadows. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Austria and Germany found that 14 species of moth preferred grazed pastures while 24 others avoided them, and three species of butterfly and ten nocturnal moths preferred mown meadows, while 19 nocturnal moth species avoided them. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that meadows managed by summer-grazing or hay-mowing were more likely to be occupied by grizzled skipper and painted lady than unmanaged meadows, but small pearl-bordered fritillary occurred less frequently in grazed meadows than in hay meadows or abandoned meadows. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland and Russia found that three of 37 butterfly species preferred meadows which were mown annually in July or August to cattle-grazed pasture, but the other 34 species showed no preference. One replicated, site comparison study in China found that uncultivated, grazed meadows were less likely to be occupied by marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars than cultivated field margins and intercrops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3908https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3908Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:31:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or create bare ground Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining or creating bare ground. Two studies were in the UK, and one was in each of the Netherlands and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a similar species richness of both grassland butterflies and disturbance-tolerant butterflies to undisturbed margins. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a higher abundance of disturbance-tolerant, but not grassland, butterflies to undisturbed margins. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that Alcon large blue occupied a similar proportion of heathlands managed with sod cutting and unmanaged heathlands. However, the same study found that Alcon large blues were less likely to occur on heathlands where sod cutting and grazing were used together. One site comparison study in the UK found that a sand dune plot which had been stripped of turf and soil supported a translocated population of belted beauty moths, but a plot which had been strimmed and raked did not. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK reported that 2-3 years after bare ground plots were created, some were used by caterpillars or adult moths of one or more of the grey carpet, lunar yellow underwing, forester and marbled clover, but none by the basil thyme case-bearer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:53:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore traditional water meadows and bogs Five studies evaluated the effect on butterflies and moths of maintaining or restoring traditional water meadows and bogs. Two studies were in the UK and one was in each of Germany, Belgium and Poland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that the species richness of butterflies was similar in wet meadows managed by mowing once/year in autumn, or by light grazing with cattle or horses. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One of two replicated, before-and-after studies in Belgium and Poland found that after cattle grazing on wet grassland began, the number of bog fritillaries which emerged on grazed areas was lower than before grazing started. The other study reported that after trees and shrubs were removed from wet meadows, the number of marsh fritillary caterpillar webs increased the following year. One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that the abundance of butterflies was similar in wet meadows managed by mowing once/year in autumn, or by light grazing with cattle or horses. One site comparison study in the UK found that wet grassland grazed at an intermediate intensity by cattle had a higher abundance of marsh fritillary caterpillar webs, but a similar abundance of adults, to grassland grazed at high or low intensity. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in Belgium found that after cattle grazing on wet grassland began, the use of the grazed areas by bog fritillaries was lower than before grazing started. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of fen meadows were occupied by marsh fritillary caterpillars whether they were managed by grazing (with cattle, sheep or horses), burning or were unmanaged. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3971Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore native wood pasture and parkland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining or restoring native wood pasture and parkland 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%2F3972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3972Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:40:10 +0100