Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the diversity of nectar and pollen plants in the landscape for beesOne large replicated controlled trial showed that the average abundance of long-tongued bumblebees on field margins was positively correlated with the number of pollen and nectar agri-environment agreements in a 10 km grid square. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F21https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F21Thu, 20 May 2010 18:33:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase areas of rough grassland for bumblebee nestingOne replicated controlled trial on lowland farms in Scotland showed that grassy field margins attracted nest-searching queen bumblebees in spring at higher densities than cropped field margins, managed or unmanaged grasslands or hedgerows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F12https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F12Thu, 20 May 2010 18:37:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity to benefit birdsA before-and-after study in the UK found that more barnacle geese Branta leucopsis used a site after the amount of land used to grow cereals was reduced and other interventions were used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F201https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F201Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:43:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection to reduce unsustainable levels of exploitation Two before-and-after studies from Central America and Europe found increases in recruitment and population levels following either stricter anti-poaching measures or stricter protection and the stationing a warden on an island. However, the Central American study found that recruitment increases were only maintained for as long as the intensive effort was continued. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F272https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F272Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:38:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity All four studies (including one replicated, controlled study and one review) from Belgium, Germany, Hungary and unspecified European countries reported a positive effect of crop rotations on ground beetles or plants. Three studies found higher ground beetle species richness and/or abundance and one study found higher plant species richness in rotation fields or on farms with more crops in rotation compared to monoculture fields. A study from Hungary found that fields in monoculture had a more stable and abundant ground beetle community than fields within a rotation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F560Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:08:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate parasitism rates when setting thresholds for insecticide usePest damage: One controlled study from New Zealand found using parasitism rates to inform spraying decisions resulted in acceptable levels of crop damage from pests. Effects on natural enemy populations were not monitored. The crop studied was tomato.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F726Thu, 30 May 2013 13:19:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate plant remains into the soil that produce weed-controlling chemicalsWeeds: Six studies (including six randomised, replicated, controlled tests) from Asia, Europe and North America examined the effect of allelopathic plant remains on weeds by comparing amended soils with weeded controls. Three studies found a reduction in weed growth, and three found effects varied between years, weed groups, or the type of weeding method in controls.Four studies from Asia and North America examined the effect on weeds by comparing amended soils with unweeded controls. Two studies found a reduction in weed growth, but one found that residues applied too far in advance of crop planting had the reverse effect. Two studies found that effects varied between trials, weed species or the type of residue used.Two studies, including one randomised, replicated, controlled laboratory study, found that the decrease in weeds did not last beyond a few days or weeks after residue incorporation. Pests: One randomised, replicated, controlled study in the Philippines found mixed effects on pests. Crop growth: Two of three studies found crop growth was inhibited by allelopathic plant remains, but this could be minimised by changing the timing of application. One study found effects varied between years. Yield: Three randomised, replicated, controlled studies compared yields in amended plots with weeded controls and found positive, negative and mixed effects. Three studies compared amended plots with unweeded controls, two found positive effects on yield and one found mixed effects (depending on the crop). Profit: One study found that amending soils increased profit compared to unweeded controls, but not compared to weeded controls. Crops studied were beans, cotton, maize, rice and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F728Thu, 30 May 2013 13:50:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate leys into crop rotationOne replicated study from Denmark showed that reducing the extent of grass pasture in leys reduced the undesirable uptake of nitrogen by grasses, therefore requiring lower rates of fertilizer for subsequent crops. SOIL TYPE COVERED: sandy-loam. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F900https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F900Tue, 01 Oct 2013 11:32:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating existing trees or woods into the landscape of new developments on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1175Thu, 19 May 2016 10:24:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating forested corridors or buffers into logged areas 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%2F1495https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1495Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:47:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase number of livestock Two site comparison studies in the UK found that cover of common heather declined in sites with a high density of livestock. One site comparison in the Netherlands found that dwarf shrub cover was lower in grazed areas than in ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that grazing increased cover of heather. One site comparison in France found that areas grazed by cattle had higher cover of non-ericaceous shrubs, but lower cover of ericaceous shrubs. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in an increase in the number of common heather and cross-leaved heath seedlings. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock did not alter shrub cover. One replicated, site comparison study and one before-and-after study in the UK and Netherlands found that increasing grazing had mixed effects on shrub and heather cover. Three site comparisons in France, the Netherlands and Greece found that grazed areas had a higher number of plant species than ungrazed areas. One before-and-after study in Belgium found that the number of plant species did not change after the introduction of grazing. One replicated, before-and-after study in the Netherlands found a decrease in the number of plant species. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing the number of livestock resulted in a decrease in vegetation height. One replicated, before-and-after trial in France found that grazing to control native woody species increased vegetation cover in one of five sites but did not increase vegetation cover in four of five sites. A systematic review of four studies in North Western Europe found that increased grazing intensity increased the cover of grass species, relative to heather species. One before-and-after study and two site comparisons in the Netherlands and France found areas with high livestock density had higher grass and sedge cover than ungrazed areas. One randomized, replicated, paired, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the number of livestock reduced grass and herb cover. One before-and-after study in Spain found that increasing the number of ponies in a heathland site reduced grass height. One replicated, site comparison in the UK and one replicated before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that increasing cattle had mixed effects on grass and herbaceous species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1628https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1628Sun, 22 Oct 2017 11:21:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase livestock numbers to control bracken We found no studies that evaluated the effects of controlling bracken by increasing livestock numbers 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%2F1659https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1659Sun, 22 Oct 2017 14:57:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase number of livestock and use prescribed burning to control trees One randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Italy found that using prescribed burning and grazing to reduce tree cover reduced the cover of common heather and the basal area of trees. However, it did not alter the cover of purple moor grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1722https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1722Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:37:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection. The study was in tropical peat swamps. Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported that the number of illegal sawmills decreased over two years of anti-logging patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1800https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1800Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:27:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase semi-natural habitat within gardens We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat within gardens 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%2F1933https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1933Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:36:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity for mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing crop diversity. ‘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%2F2392https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2392Thu, 28 May 2020 09:38:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase size of protected area One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing the size of a protected area. This study was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that expanding a fenced reserve resulted in the home range of a reintroduced group of lions becoming larger but the core range becoming smaller. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2563Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:55:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase resources for managing protected areas One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing resources for managing protected areas. This study was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Species richness (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that mammal species richness was higher in a well-resourced national park, than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study Tanzania found that there were greater occupancy rates or relative abundances of most mammal species in a well-resourced national park than in a less well-resourced forest reserve. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2564Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:57:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers) for marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection for 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%2F3388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3388Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase number of species in seed mix Five studies examined the effects of increasing the number of species in a seed mix on grassland vegetation. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Germany. VEGETATION COMMUNITY (4 STUDIES) Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that increasing the number of species in a seed mix did not change plant species richness. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that increasing the number of species in a seed mix, along with sowing seeds from a local source, increased the species richness of target plants. Sown/planted species richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA (one of which was randomized) found that increasing the number species in a seed mix increased the species richness of sown plants. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE (3 STUDIES) Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Germany found that increasing the number of species in a seed mix, along with sowing seeds from a local source, increased the cover of target plant species. Sown/planted species abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies (one of which was randomized) in the USA found that increasing the number of species in a seed mix increased the cover of sown plant species. The other study found that there was no change in the cover of sown species. VEGETATION STRUCTURE (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3406https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3406Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:56:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase consideration of butterflies and moths in international, national and local conservation plans We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the consideration of butterflies and moths in international, national and local conservation plans. ‘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%2F3848https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3848Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:27:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase biosecurity checks We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing biosecurity checks. ‘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%2F3887https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3887Tue, 26 Jul 2022 18:26:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase or maintain the proportion of natural or semi‐natural habitat in the farmed landscape Twelve studies evaluated the effects of increasing or maintaining the proportion of natural or semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape on butterflies and moths. Three studies were in Switzerland, two were in each of Germany, Sweden and the UK, and one was in each of the USA, Malaysia, and New Zealand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (11 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (11 studies): Nine of eleven studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study, one before-and-after study and eight replicated, site comparison studies) in Germany, Sweden, Malaysia, Switzerland, the UK, and New Zealand found that the species richness of butterflies, burnet moths and all moths was higher on farms with a greater proportion of semi-natural habitat or with a greater proportion of woodland in the surrounding landscape, or after semi-natural habitat had been created, compared to conventional farmland or farmland with a greater proportion of arable land in the surrounding landscape. One study found that species richness of butterflies in oil palm plantations was higher where ground coverage of weeds had been maintained but similar whether or not epiphyte or fern coverage was maintained. The eleventh study found that the species richness of butterflies was similar on farms with different proportions of semi-natural habitat. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Six replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and five site comparison studies) in Sweden, the UK, New Zealand, and Switzerland found that the abundance of butterflies and moths was higher on farms with a greater proportion of semi-natural habitat, or in semi-natural habitat compared to conventional farmland. One of two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Sweden found that the abundance of four out of eight species of butterflies was higher on farms surrounded by woodland, but the abundance of least skipper was lower on farms with more semi-natural habitat. The other study found that overall butterfly abundance was similar on farms surrounded by different proportions of woodland and arable land. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3910https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3910Wed, 10 Aug 2022 14:34:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase crop diversity across a farm or farmed landscape Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing crop diversity across a farm or farmed landscape. Both studies were in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Switzerland found that farms and landscapes with a greater number of habitats or crop types had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms and landscapes with fewer different habitats or crop types. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a greater number of habitats had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with fewer different habitats. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3921https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3921Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:45:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase grazing intensity or cutting frequency on grassland Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of increasing grazing intensity or cutting frequency on grassland. Two studies were in Germany, and one study was in each of the Czech Republic, the USA and Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that at intensively grazed sites species richness of adult butterflies and burnet moths was lower than at sites with low or no grazing, but caterpillar richness was lower in intensively grazed and low grazing sites than in sites with no grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (including one replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study, one replicated, site comparison study, and two site comparison studies) in Germany, the USA and Israel found that grasslands managed with more intensive grazing or with grazing in addition to rotational burning had a lower abundance of all adult butterflies, adult burnet moths, adult regal fritillaries and spring webworm caterpillar nests than ungrazed grasslands, lightly or moderately grazed grasslands or rotationally burned grasslands with occasional light grazing. However, one of these studies found that, while intensively grazed sites had lower butterfly and burnet moth caterpillar abundance than ungrazed sites, there was no difference in caterpillar abundance between ungrazed and lightly grazed sites. One before-and-after study in the Czech Republic reported that after increasing the cutting frequency on traditional meadows (under agri-environment scheme prescriptions) the abundance of Danube clouded yellow decreased. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3962https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3962Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:37:50 +0100