Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (e.g. agri-environment schemes) Three studies evaluated the effects of agri-environment schemes on bat populations. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, paired sites studies in the UK found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) or the occurrence of six bat species did not differ significantly between farms managed under agri-environment schemes and those managed conventionally. One of the studies found that agri-environment scheme farms had similar activity of five bat species, and lower activity of one bat species, compared to conventional farms. The other study found lower overall bat activity and activity of pipistrelle species on agri-environment scheme farms than conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F962Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:25:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Add compost to the soilPest regulation (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA and an unspecified Mediterranean country, one study found less disease in crops grown in soils with added compost, compared to soils without it, in some comparisons, but one study found no differences in most crop diseases. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of Escherichia coli bacteria in plots with or without added compost. This study also found that similar percentages of pests were consumed by natural enemies in plots with or without added compost. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study found fewer dead tomato plants in soil with added compost, compared to soil without added compost, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar ratios of natural enemies to pests (mostly aphids) in plots with or without added compost. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar pest numbers in plots with or without added compost. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1392Mon, 15 May 2017 16:13:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more aphids in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons, but another one found similar numbers of aphids in the same study system. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1393Mon, 15 May 2017 16:14:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that fewer aphids were parasitized in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. Crop damage (6 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of diseased broccoli seedlings or tomato plants in plots with or without winter cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less-severely diseased lettuces in plots with winter cover crops, compared to winter fallows, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in tomato damage between plots with cover crops or fallows. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (14 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Israel and Italy found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more weeds in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and the USA found that winter cover crops had inconsistent effects on weeds (sometimes more, sometimes fewer, compared to plots without winter cover crops). One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weeds in plots with winter cover crops or fallows. Weed species (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found fewer weed species in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in one of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found different weed communities in plots with or without winter cover crops. Other pests (6 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found fewer aphids in plots with cover crops (living mulches) between broccoli plants, compared to plots without cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more mites (in some comparisons), but similar numbers of centipedes and springtails, in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafminers in plots with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of fungus in soils with or without winter cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nematode numbers between soils with cover crops or fallows. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (13 studies): Nine studies from Israel, Italy, and the USA found that different cover crops had different effects on crop damage or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different cover crops (living mulches) did not have different effects on pest regulation or pest numbers. Two studies from the USA found that different methods of seeding cover crops had different effects on pest numbers.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1394Mon, 15 May 2017 16:19:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsPest regulation (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more leafhopper eggs were parasitized in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in one of six comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found inconsistent differences or no differences in the parasitism of leafhopper eggs between plots with or without ground cover. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that more grapes were damaged by pests in plots with cover crops, compared to bare fallows, in some comparisons. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (12 studies) Weeds (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in an olive orchard in Spain found fewer weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from a vineyard in the USA found more weeds in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, in one of nine comparisons. Implementation options (4 studies): Three studies from vineyards in the USA found different numbers of weeds or weed species in plots with different types of ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One study from the USA found similar numbers of weeds in vine rows with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that plant diversity decreased over time in plots without tillage, but increased in plots with tillage. This study found that tillage had no effects on the number of plant species and had inconsistent effects on plant biomass. Insects (5 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found fewer leafhoppers in plots with cover crops, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more leafhoppers, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of leafhoppers. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more navel orangeworm moths in plots with resident vegetation, compared to tilled soil, in one of two comparisons. Implementation options (2 studies): Two studies from the USA found fewer pests in plots with mown ground cover, compared to unmown ground cover or ground cover before mowing. Mammals (1 study) Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more gophers in plots with clover, compared to other cover crops. Natural enemy numbers (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Spain and the USA found more natural enemies in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from the USA found fewer parasitoids in plots with ground cover, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in the numbers of spiders between plots with or without ground cover. One of these studies found no difference in the number of spider species between plots with or without ground cover, and another one found no difference in the composition of spider communities. Implementation options (1 study): One study from the USA found more natural enemies in plots with mown cover crops, one week after mowing, compared to before mowing. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1395Mon, 15 May 2017 16:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use crop rotationsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Australia found less weed biomass in plots with a canola-wheat sequence, compared to a wheat-wheat sequence. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of weed biomass in plots with four-year or two-year crop rotations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1396Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Syria found no differences in most diseases between plots with no tillage or conventional tillage, but found a higher incidence of Aschochyta blight in plots with no tillage. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in weeds (sometimes more weeds in plots with no tillage, sometimes fewer). One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Lebanon found similar numbers of weeds in plots with or without tillage. Weed species (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with or without tillage. Other pests (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found fewer parasitic plants (broomrapes) in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in plots with or without tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1397Fri, 19 May 2017 09:00:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use no tillage instead of reduced tillagePest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (6 studies) Weeds (6 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, and Spain found fewer weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two of these studies also found more weeds in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled studies from Australia found more weeds in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of weeds in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Weed species (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found fewer weed species in plots with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and Spain found similar numbers of weed species in plots with no tillage or reduced tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with no tillage, compared to reduced tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1398Fri, 19 May 2017 09:05:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (9 studies) Weeds (8 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, Turkey, and the USA found more weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One of these studies also found fewer weeds in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar numbers of weeds in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Weed species (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Turkey found similar numbers of weed species in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found that weed communities had different compositions in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Diseases and pest insects (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of diseases and pest insects in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of predatory mites in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1399Fri, 19 May 2017 09:10:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant flowersPest regulation (3 studies): Three replicated studies from Italy and the USA found greater pest reduction or higher proportions of parasitized pests in fields and farms with planted flower strips. Crop damage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more damage by caterpillars, but not by aphids, in tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to bare ground. One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found that planted flower strips had inconsistent effects on crop damage by pests. Pest numbers (2 studies): One replicated, paired, controlled study from Italy found more pests on tomatoes next to planted flower strips, compared to tomatoes next to unplanted field margins. One replicated before-and-after study from the USA found more aphids in fields after flower strips were made available. Natural enemy numbers (4 studies): Two replicated studies from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with planted flower strips, compared to fields without planted flower strips, in some comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found more natural enemies in planted flower strips than on bare ground, and one of these studies also found more species of natural enemies. Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA and Spain found that some flower species were more attractive to natural enemies than others. Two replicated, controlled studies from Italy found that planting more species of flowers, compared to fewer, had inconsistent effects on pests and pest species, but one of these found less crop damage next to flower strips with more species, compared to fewer, in some comparisons. This study also found more species of natural enemies in flower strips, over time, but did not find more individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1400Fri, 19 May 2017 09:13:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Plant hedgerowsPest regulation (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that a higher proportion of pest eggs were parasitized in tomato fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, but only up to 100 m into the crop. Crop damage (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found that pest damage to tomatoes was no different in fields with hedgerows than it was in fields with weedy edges. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (2 studies): Of two replicated site comparisons from the USA, one paired study found a greater ratio of natural enemies to pests in hedgerows, compared to weedy edges, but one unpaired study did not. The unpaired study also found no difference in the ratio of natural enemies to pests between fields with hedgerows and fields with weedy edges. Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found fewer pests in fields or field edges with hedgerows, compared to fields or field edges without hedgerows. Natural enemy numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison from the USA found more natural enemies in fields with hedgerows, compared to fields with weedy edges, and in hedgerows themselves, compared to weedy edges, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1401Fri, 19 May 2017 09:15:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Restore habitat along watercoursesPest regulation (0 studies) Crop damage (0 studies) Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One replicated site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to restored riparian habitats, compared to remnant habitats. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, site comparison from the USA found more weeds in orchards next to older restored sites, compared to younger restored sites.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1402Fri, 19 May 2017 09:17:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pest regulation: Exclude grazersPest regulation (0 studies) Pest damage (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found no relationship between plant numbers and gopher numbers in ungrazed sites, but found fewer plant species in grazed sites with more gophers. Ratio of natural enemies to pests (0 studies) Pest numbers (1 study): One site comparison in grassland in the USA found more signs of gopher activity in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites. Natural enemy numbers (0 studies)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1403Fri, 19 May 2017 09:21:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter primates We found no evidence for the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter 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%2F1429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1429Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:51:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Permanent presence of staff/manager One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One study in Thailand found that a reintroduced population of lar gibbons declined over three years despite permanent presence of reserve staff alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after introducing permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Congo found that most reintroduced central chimpanzees survived over five years after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas survived over nine months, after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:22:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants. ‘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%2F1769https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1769Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:41:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay landowners to protect peatlands One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of paying landowners to protect them. The study was of bogs. Peatland habitat (1 study): One review from reported that agri-environment schemes in the UK had mixed effects on bogs, protecting the area of bog habitat in three of six cases. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1799https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1799Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Periodically move and relocate moorings We found no studies that evaluated the effects of periodically moving and relocating moorings on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘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%2F2093https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2093Mon, 21 Oct 2019 15:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation We found no studies that evaluated the effects of paying monetary compensation for habitat damage remediation on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘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%2F2263https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2263Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:58:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study, in the UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment was associated with increased brown hare density in one of two regions studied. A replicated, site comparison study in Northern Ireland, UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment did not increase numbers of Irish hares. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that in field margins created through enrolment in an agri-environment scheme, small mammal abundance in spring increased, whereas it remained stable in conventionally managed margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387Thu, 28 May 2020 08:38:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/salt marshesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in 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%2F3096https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3096Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:05:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically damage problematic plants: brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of physically damaging problematic plants in 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%2F3098https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3098Sat, 03 Apr 2021 16:06:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the overall effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of paying stakeholders to protect marshes or swamps. There was one study in each of the UK and Nigeria. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in the UK found that paying landowners to manage farmland ditches under agri-environment rules had no clear or significant effect on the frequency of emergent vegetation. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that farmland ditches managed under agri-environment rules contained a similar number of plant species to ditches not managed under these rules. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE VEGETATION STRUCTURE OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One study in Nigeria reported that 58 communities with access to micro-credits for sustainable development changed their behaviour. In particular, they switched from livelihood practices that damaged mangrove forests to more sustainable practices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3387Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:49:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures One study evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on reptiles. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile species richness compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that sites managed under agri-environment schemes had similar reptile abundances compared to sites that were managed purely for livestock production or areas of unmanaged woodland. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3486Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:08:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures (as in agri-environment schemes or conservation incentives) Thirty-two studies evaluated the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures on butterflies and moths. Eighteen studies were in the UK, eight were in Switzerland two were in Finland, and one was in each of Sweden, the Czech Republic, the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (18 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Switzerland found that the community composition of butterflies on grasslands that farmers were paid to manage for wildlife was similar to intensively managed grasslands. Richness/diversity (19 studies): Twelve of 15 studies (including eight controlled, one before-and-after and five site comparison studies) in Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Sweden found that the species richness or diversity of butterflies and moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than on conventional fields or farms. The other three studies found that the species richness of butterflies and micro-moths on grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional fields or farms. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in landscapes with a greater proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in landscapes with a smaller proportion of agri-environment schemes, but the other study found that species richness of butterflies was similar on individual farms with more land managed under agri-environment schemes than on farms with smaller areas of agri-environment schemes. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the species richness of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was similar to that on native prairie. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland found that the species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths on grassland managed under an agri-environment scheme was lower than on abandoned, unmanaged grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (27 STUDIES) Abundance (27 studies): Seventeen of 19 studies (including seven controlled studies, one replicated, site comparison study, two before-and-after studies, and eight site comparison studies) in the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Germany found that the abundance of butterflies and moths overall, and of specific species of butterflies or moths, in woodland, grassland, field margins, wildflower strips or whole farms managed under agri-environment schemes was higher than in unmanaged woodland or conventional fields or farms. The other two studies found that the abundance of butterflies and macro-moths on field margins managed under agri-environment schemes was similar to conventional margins. Three of four replicated studies (including one controlled and three site comparison studies) in the UK and Switzerland found that the abundance of butterflies was higher on farms or in landscapes with a higher proportion of land managed under agri-environment schemes than in areas with less land in agri-environment schemes. The other study found that the abundance of some species was higher, but others were lower, on farms with enhanced agri-environment management compared to simple management. Three studies (including one before-and-after and two replicated, site comparison studies) in Finland and the Czech Republic found that grassland grazed or restored under agri-environment scheme prescriptions had a lower abundance of all but three butterfly and day-flying moth species compared to unmanaged grassland, and that Danube clouded yellow abundance declined after agri-environment scheme mowing was initiated on abandoned grasslands. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the abundance of butterflies on grassland sown under a conservation incentive program was lower than on native prairie. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3915Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:41:00 +0100