Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer run-off into marginsWe have captured no evidence on the effects of specific interventions to reduce fertilizer run off into field margins. '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%2F28https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F28Thu, 20 May 2010 17:48:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We have captured no evidence for the effects of reducing field size (or maintaining small fields) 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%2F72https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F72Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:03:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of reducing field sizes 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%2F174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F174Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity Nine studies from the USA and the UK, one replicated and controlled, found increases in populations of some species on fields with reduced grazing, or increased use of such fields by birds. Three of the studies used multiple interventions at once. Five studies from Europe, four replicated and controlled, found that some or all species were no more numerous on fields with reduced grazing, compared to intensively-grazed fields. One paired sites study from the UK found that black grouse Tetrao tetrix populations increased at reduced grazing sites (and declined elsewhere), but that large areas of reduced grazing had lower densities of female grouse. A before-and-after study from the USA found that the number of species on plots with reduced grazing increased over time. A replicated, controlled study from four countries in Europe found no differences in the number of species on sites with low-intensity or high-intensity grazing. One replicated trial in the UK found that some bird groups preferred grassland short in winter (grazing effect simulated by mowing), and others preferred it long (unmown to simulate removal of livestock). Frequency and timing of the simulated grazing did not alter this preference. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F220https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F220Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:28:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce gillnet deployment time to reduce seabird bycatch We found no evidence for the effects on seabird bycatch rates of reducing gill net deployment time. '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%2F304https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F304Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:11:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock) Of 27 individual studies (including 10 replicated, controlled trials, four reviews and one systematic review) from France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, 15 (including three randomized, replicated, controlled trials) from four countries found benefits to birds, plants or invertebrates in response to reducing grazing intensity on permanent grassland (including seasonal removal of livestock). Of these 15 studies, six (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year increased the abundance and diversity of plants (Tallowin et al. 2005, Marriott et al. 2009), frequency of certain plant species, invertebrate diversity, usage by geese and the number of northern lapwing and common redshank. Six studies (including three replicated controlled trials of which two randomized) found that excluding or delaying summer grazing increased plant species diversity, invertebrate abundance and benefited breeding Eurasian skylark. A review found a study that showed that removing autumn grazing after a silage cut increased the winter abundance of seed-eating birds. A review and a replicated controlled study from the UK found that reduced grazing intensity or seasonal removal of livestock increased the number of invertebrates, plant seed heads and foraging skylark, and that some bird species preferred plots with seasonal removal of livestock. Three studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial) from the Netherlands and the UK found no benefit to plants or invertebrates from reduced grazing intensity. One randomized, replicated controlled trial excluded grazing in autumn/winter and another study excluded grazing in the summer. A further study found that reducing grazing intensity throughout the year did not increase plant diversity. Nine studies from France, Germany and the UK reported mixed results for some or all species or wildlife groups considered (including one randomized, replicated, controlled trial and two reviews and a systematic review). Of these, eight studies found that reduced grazing intensity throughout the year benefited some species but not others, one found that the impact depended on the type of vegetation grazed, and one found benefits to bee and wasp abundance but not species richness. One study found that the response of birds to removal of summer grazing varied between functional groups and depended on time of year. A UK review found that reduced grazing benefited invertebrates, plants, rodents and some but not all birds. A systematic review of the effects of grazing intensity on meadow pasture concluded that intermediate levels of grazing are usually optimal for plants, invertebrates and birds but that trade-offs are likely to exist between the requirements of different taxa. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F704Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:33:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensityCompaction: One replicated study from Australia found compacted soils recovered when sheep were excluded for 2.5 years. Erosion: Two replicated studies from New Zealand and Syria (one also controlled) measured the effect of grazing animals on soil nutrient and sediment loss. Of these, one trial found increased soil carbon and nitrogen when grazing animals were excluded. One trial found higher soil phosphate levels, and less sediment erosion when grazing time in forage crops was reduced. SOIL TYPES COVERED: clay, clay-loamy, loamy, silt loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F901https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F901Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:12:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generallyBiodiversity: Two site comparison studies from Italy and Pakistan (one also replicated) found a higher diversity of soil invertebrates and microorganisms in low-input systems. Nutrient loss: One study from Canada found lower nutrient levels and yields in low-input systems. SOIL TYPES COVERED: coarse sandy, loam, sandy-loam, and silt. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F904Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:36:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fish meal in diet Two replicated studies in Norway found similar final weights in salmon that were fed diets containing low, medium or high levels of fish meal. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F915Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:26:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries We found no evidence for the effects of reducing garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries 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%2F1560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1560Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:02:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land We found no studies that evaluated the effects of reducing fertilizer use on nearby agricultural/forestry land 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%2F1668https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1668Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:14:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of harvest (of wild biological resources) We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of reducing harvest frequency (of wild biological resources). ‘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%2F1743https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1743Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:25:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) One study evaluated the effects of maintaining small fields on bat populations. The study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that agricultural landscapes with smaller fields had higher activity (relative abundance) of six of seven bat species than landscapes with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1939Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:19:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: freshwater marshes Three studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in freshwater marshes (or harvesting at different frequencies). There was one study in each of the USA, Belgium and Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that overall plant species richness was similar in plots harvested once or twice/year. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that the effect of harvesting twice/year (in July and October) on total above-ground biomass was intermediate between the effects of harvesting once/year in July or October. Individual species abundance (3 studies): All three studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that cattail Typha biomass was greater, nine months after the last harvest, in plots harvested every six weeks than in plots harvested every three weeks. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in reedbeds in Italy found that the common reed Phragmites australis biomass was similar in plots harvested once or twice/year, when measured at least five months after the last harvest. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2997https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2997Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:15:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in brackish/salt marshes (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F2998https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2998Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in freshwater swamps (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F2999https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2999Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of vegetation harvest: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of harvest in brackish/saline swamps (or harvesting at different frequencies). ‘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%2F3000https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3000Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:16:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of hunting/collecting animalsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of hunting/collecting animals in marshes or 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%2F3015https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3015Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:23:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of cutting/mowing: freshwater marshes Four studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of cutting/mowing in freshwater marshes (or cutting/mowing them at different frequencies). There was one study in each of USA, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study of farmland ditches in the Netherlands found that marshy areas cut once, twice or three times/year had a similar overall plant community composition, when surveyed in July. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in farmland ditches in the Netherlands and wet grasslands in Belgium reported that overall plant species richness was similar in plots cut once or twice/year (and three times/year in the Netherlands). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in wet grasslands in Belgium reported that the effect of cutting twice/year (in July and October) on total above-ground biomass was intermediate between the effects of cutting once/year in July or October. Individual species abundance (4 studies): All four studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, paired, controlled study in freshwater marshes in the USA reported that cattail Typha spp. biomass was greater, nine months after the last cut, in plots cut every six weeks than in plots cut every three weeks. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in reedbeds in Italy found that common reed Phragmites australis biomass was similar in plots mown once or twice/year, when measured at least five months after the last cut. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3066https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3066Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:14:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of cutting/mowing: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of cutting/mowing in brackish/salt marshes (or cutting/mowing them at different frequencies). ‘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%2F3067https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3067Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:17:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce frequency of prescribed burningWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of reducing the frequency of prescribed burning in marshes or swamps (or burning them at different frequencies). ‘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%2F3072https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3072Fri, 02 Apr 2021 14:40:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Eleven studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally. Three studies were in the UK, two were in each of the USA and Germany, one was in each of Spain, Mexico and Switzerland, and one was a systematic review across Europe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (10 studies): Eight studies (including one replicated study, two controlled studies, one randomized study, five site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in the USA, Europe, the UK, Spain, Mexico and Switzerland found that orchards, crop edges, farms, vineyards, replanted Douglas fir stands, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a greater species richness of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars (in one case along with other leaf-eating arthropods), than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that species richness was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of the studies also found that vineyards managed with reduced insecticide and herbicide application had a similar species richness of moths to conventionally managed vineyards. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and one site comparison study) in the UK and Germany found that unfertilized grassland had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths, but greater species richness of specialist moths, to fertilized grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Six studies (including one replicated study, one controlled study, one randomized study, four site comparison studies, and one systematic review) in Europe, the UK, Germany, Mexico and Switzerland found that crop edges, farms, a hay meadow, coffee plantations and agricultural landscapes managed with less frequent, reduced or no pesticide, insecticide, fungicide, herbicide, fertilizer or unspecified chemical input (sometimes along with other agri-environment scheme options or less intensive management) had a higher abundance of adult butterflies and moths, or caterpillars, than areas with more frequent or conventional chemical applications. However, one of these studies found that abundance was not affected by the number of pesticide applications in the year of study, only in the previous three years, and another of these studies also found that a hay meadow with no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of caterpillars to a meadow where herbicide was used, and a meadow with no fertilizer applications had a lower abundance of caterpillars than a meadow where fertilizer was applied in one of two sampling sessions. Three replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and one site comparison study) in the UK, Germany and the USA found that unfertilized grassland and replanted Douglas fir stands with limited or no herbicide applications had a similar abundance of adult butterflies and caterpillars, and adult moths, to fertilized grassland and stands with more herbicide applications. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that unfertilized or lightly fertilized grasslands were preferred to heavily fertilized grasslands by 7 out of 58 species of moth, but 12 of 58 species preferred more heavily fertilized grasslands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3897https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3897Tue, 09 Aug 2022 13:43:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce grazing intensity on grassland by reducing stocking density Fourteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of reducing grazing intensity on grassland by reducing stocking density. Four studies were in the UK, two were in each of Sweden and Germany, one was in each of the USA, Belgium and the Netherlands, Europe and Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (8 studies): Five of eight replicated studies (including two randomized, controlled studies and six site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Germany, the USA and Switzerland found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of sheep, cattle or a mix of sheep, cattle and horses had a greater species richness of adult butterflies, all moths and burnet moths than grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. However, one of these studies also found that butterfly and burnet moth caterpillar species richness was similar at sites with low and high stocking densities. Two of the other studies found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of cattle and horses or unspecified grazing animals had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths to grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. The other study found that, in one of two study years, grasslands grazed with cattle at a low density had lower species richness than grasslands grazed at moderate density. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Eight replicated studies (including four controlled studies and four site comparison studies) in the UK, Germany, the USA and Sweden found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of sheep, cattle or both (in one case combined with a later start to grazing) had a greater abundance of all butterflies, butterflies with grass host plants, all moths, burnet moths, their caterpillars or specific species (in two cases as part of combined invertebrate counts) than grasslands grazed at higher stocking densities. The three studies on caterpillars only found a higher abundance at two out of three sites or in earlier or later sampling periods, and one of the studies found that sites with low and high intensity grazing had a similar abundance of butterfly and burnet moth caterpillars. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden and Switzerland found that grasslands grazed with lower stocking densities of cattle and horses or unspecified grazing animals had a similar abundance of butterflies and burnet moths to grassland grazed at higher stocking densities. One review of studies in Europe reported that reducing grazing intensity benefitted 41 out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern, but did not distinguish between reducing stocking density and seasonal removal of livestock. Survival (1 study): One site comparison study in Belgium and the Netherlands reported that the survival of Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests was similar between grasslands with low and high stocking density of sheep. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in Belgium and the Netherlands found that after 6–10 days of sheep grazing, fewer Glanville fritillary caterpillar nests were damaged in a grassland with lower stocking density than in a grassland with higher stocking density, but there was no difference after two months. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3959https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3959Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:37:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) Five studies evaluated the effects of reducing field size on butterflies and moths. Two studies were in Switzerland, and one was in each of Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic and Poland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two of four replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland and Switzerland found that arable farms (in more diverse landscapes) and landscapes with smaller fields had a higher species richness of butterflies and burnet moths than areas with larger fields. The other two studies found that mixed farms and landscapes with smaller fields had a similar species richness of butterflies to areas with larger fields. One before-and-after study in Germany found that after reducing field size by increasing the length of field edges on a farm, along with increasing the area of meadows and field margins, the species richness of butterflies and burnet moths increased. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Poland and Switzerland found that arable and mixed farms and landscapes with smaller fields had a higher abundance of butterflies and burnet moths than areas with larger fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3974https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3974Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:04:31 +0100