Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on pylonsA single controlled study from the USA found significantly lower raptor activity close to perch-deterrent power lines, compared to control lines. No data were provided on electrocution rates.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on deciduous forests Of four studies found, one paired sites study from the USA found that bird species richness was similar in burned and unburned aspen forests, although there were significant changes in the relative abundances of some species. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found no evidence for changes in community composition in oak and hickory forests following burning. A replicated controlled trial from the USA found no differences in wood thrush nest survival in burned compared to unburned areas. Another replicated controlled trial from the USA found a reduction in the number of black-chinned hummingbird nests following fuel reduction treatments that included burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F317https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F317Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:53:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on pine forests Two studies of the 28 captured (all from the USA) found higher bird species richness in sites with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control or just burning and tree thinning, compared to control sites. Five studies found no differences in species richness or community composition between sites with prescribed burning; prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control; or prescribed burning and tree thinning only, compared to control sites, or those with other management. Eight studies found that some species or guilds (such as open habitat species) were more abundant or more likely to be found in burned areas of pine forest than control areas. One study found that the responses of Henslow’s sparrows to burning varied considerably with geography and habitat. Three studies found that some species were more abundant in thinned and burned stands, compared to controls or other management. Three studies found that overall bird densities or abundances of red-cockaded woodpeckers were higher in open pine forests with prescribed burning, tree thinning and mid- or understorey control, compared with control areas or those thinned but not burned. One found differences were more marked in spring. A study found that a red-cockaded woodpecker population increased following the start of intensive management consisting of prescribed burning and other interventions. Ten studies found that total bird densities or those of some species was the same or lower in sites with prescribed burning compared to control sites, or those with other management. Five studies investigated several interventions at once. Generally, closed-forest species and ground nesters appeared to be adversely affected by burning. Three studies found higher productivities or survival of species in burned or burned and thinned areas, compared to control areas or those burned less recently. Seven studies found no differences in productivity, behaviour or survival (including of artificial nests) in burned areas or burned and thinned areas, compared to controls. One study found that northern bobwhite chicks had lower foraging success in burned areas, compared to other management regimes, whilst another found that different predators were dominant under different management. The three studies that investigated it found that burning season did not appear to affect the effects of burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F318Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:02:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on Australian sclerophyll forest Two of three studies from Australia found no differences in bird species richness in burned sites compared to unburned areas. Three studies found differences in species assemblages in burned and unburned areas, with some species lost and others gained from areas after fire.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on savannas A replicated and controlled study from Kenya, of five studies captured, found that burned areas of savanna tended to have more birds and more species than control or grazed areas. However, the authors note that differences were not present during drought years and burned sites showed significant annual variation, unlike grazed sites. A replicated and controlled study from Australia found that the effects of burning on bird abundances depended on burn season, and habitat type. Two replicated studies in the USA found that some open country species were more common in burned areas than unburned, whilst other species were less so. A small study from the USA found that two eastern bluebird Sialia sialis successfully raised chicks after the habitat around their nest boxes was subject to a prescribed burn.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F320https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F320Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:58:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on shrublands One controlled study from the USA, of eight captured, found that overall bird densities were similar between burned and unburned areas, whilst a replicated and controlled study found that species numbers and bird densities did not vary between areas burned in summer and those burned in winter. Three studies found that some species were more abundant on areas that were burned, compared to those managed differently, or not at all. Four studies found that the densities of individual species were similar or lower on burned areas compared to control areas or those under different management. A before-and-after study found that sage sparrows chose different nest sites before burning compared to after. A controlled study found no differences in greater sage grouse movement between burned and unburned areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F321https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F321Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:10:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on grasslands Four studies from the USA, of 21 studies captured, found that overall species richness did not vary between burned areas, or areas burned recently, and unburned sites. One study found that community composition was also similar whilst others found that species showed individual responses. Nine studies from across the world found that at least some study species were found at higher densities or were more abundant in burned areas than in unburned areas or areas under different management. One study investigated multiple interventions at once. Fourteen studies found that at least one study species was less abundant or found at similar abundances on burned areas of grassland, compared to unburned areas or those under different management. However, four studies found that apparent responses varied depending on how soon after fires measurements were taken. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting the results of studies on prescribed burning. One study from the USA found that Florida grasshopper sparrow had significantly higher reproductive success soon after plots were burned, whilst another American study founds that dickcissel reproductive success was higher in patch-burned areas than burned and grazed areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F322https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F322Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:38:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on coastal habitats Of three studies captured, one replicated, controlled, paired sites study from the USA found that there was a fall in breeding seaside sparrow numbers on a burned site in the year it was burned. The next year, numbers were higher than on an unburned site. A controlled study in Argentina found that tall-grass specialist species were lost from burned areas in the year of burning, but that some habitats recovered by the following year. A replicated controlled study from the USA found no differences in nest predation rates between burned and unburned areas for two years after burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:24:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use perches to increase foraging success Two studies from the USA found that raptors and other birds used perches provided, whilst a replicated and controlled study in Sweden found that raptors used clearcuts with perches significantly more than those without. However, a controlled study from the USA found that overall bird abundances were not higher in areas provided with perches and a small controlled cross-over trial on an island in the USA found that San Clemente loggerhead shrikes Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi did not alter their hunting patterns or increase their success rates following the installation of perches in their territories.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F556Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:05:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach threshold levelsNatural enemies: One randomised, replicated, controlled study from Finland found that threshold-based spraying regimes increased numbers of natural enemies in two of three years but effects lasted for as little as three weeks. Pests and disease: Two of four studies from France, Malaysia and the USA reported that pests were satisfactorily controlled. One randomised, replicated, controlled study found pest numbers were similar under threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes and one study reported that pest control was inadequate. A randomised, replicated, controlled study found mixed effects on disease severity. Crop damage: Four of five randomised, replicated, controlled studies from New Zealand, the Philippines and the USA found similar crop damage under threshold-based and conventional, preventative spraying regimes, but one study found damage increased. Another study found slightly less crop damage compared to unsprayed controls. Yield: Two of four randomised, replicated, controlled studies found similar yields under threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes. Two studies found mixed effects depending on site, year, pest stage/type or control treatment. Profit: Two of three randomised, replicated, controlled studies found similar profits using threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes. One study found effects varied between sites and years. Costs: Nine studies found fewer pesticide applications were needed and three studies found or predicted lower production costs. Crops studied were barley, broccoli, cabbages, cauliflower, celery, cocoa, cotton, grape, peanut, potato, rice, tomato and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F750https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F750Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:05:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of prescribed burning on bat populations. Thirteen studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one before-and-after with paired sites, one site comparison) in Australia found that the composition of bat species differed between burned and unburned woodland sites. The other study found that the composition of bat species was similar between unlogged forest blocks burned every two or four years and unburned blocks. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Australia found more bat species in unlogged forest blocks burned every four years than in blocks burned every two years or unburned blocks. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that the activity (relative abundance) of open habitat bat species and evening bats increased with the number of prescribed fires, but there was no effect on other bat species, including cluttered habitat bat species. Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies (including two controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that prescribed burning, prescribed burning along with thinning or prescribed burning every four years resulted in higher overall bat activity or activity of Florida bonneted bats. One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven sites that had been burned alongside other restoration practices had higher bat activity than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that three of four burning and thinning treatments resulted in higher overall bat activity. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found similar activity of three bat species in burned and unburned tree stands. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES)      Use (5 studies): One replicated, controlled before-and-after study in the USA found that more female northern myotis bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found that fewer female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. One replicated study in the USA found that evening bats roosted in burned but not unburned forest. One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that burned sites had a higher occupancy of five bat species/species groups than unburned sites, and burn severity had a negative effect on the occupancy of two bat species/species groups. Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found no difference in roost switching frequency or the distance between roost trees for female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats in burned and unburned forests. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that female northern myotis home ranges and core areas did not differ in size between burned and unburned forests, but home ranges were closer to burned forest than unburned forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that home ranges of female Rafinesque’s big-eared bats were located similar distances to burned and unburned forest, and male home ranges were closer to unburned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse plants We found no evidence for the effect of using pioneer plants or crops on planted trees. '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%2F1163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1163Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use We found no evidence for the effects of using prescribed burning within the context of home range size and use 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%2F1516https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1516Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:16:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to mimic natural fire cycle We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to mimic the natural fire cycle 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%2F1622https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1622Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:38:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to reduce potential for large wild fires We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning to reduce the potential for large wild fires 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%2F1623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1623Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to control trees One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after trial in the USA found that burning to control trees did not change cover of two of three grass species. One randomized, controlled study in Italy found that prescribed burning to control trees reduced cover of common heather, increased cover of purple moor grass, and had mixed effects on the basal area of trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1721Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:48:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning to control grass One replicated controlled, paired, before-and-after study in the UK found that prescribed burning to reduce the cover of purple moor grass, did not reduce its cover but did reduce the cover of common heather. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the UK found that prescribed burning initially reduced vegetation height, but this recovered over time. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1723https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1723Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:27:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Thirty-seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using prescribed burning. Twenty-five studies were in the USA, three each were in Canada and South Africa, two each were in Spain and Tanzania and one each was in France and Auatralia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found similar small mammal species richness after prescribed burning compared to in unburned forest. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that prescribed burns early in the dry season resulted in higher small mammal species richness relative to wildfires later in the season. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (11 studies): Five of 10 replicated studies (of which eight were controlled and two were site comparisons), in the USA, Spain and Australia, found that prescribed burning did not increase abundances of small mammals. Three studies found mixed effects, on cottontail rabbits and small mammals and two found that burning increased numbers of European rabbits and small mammals. A systematic review in the USA found that two mammal species showed positive responses (abundance or reproduction) to prescribed burning while three showed no response. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after, site comparison study in South Africa found that 92% of Cape mountain zebra foals were produced in the three years post-fire compared to 8% in the three years pre-fire. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study, in the USA, found that prescribed burning did not reduce bot fly infestation rates among rodents and cottontail rabbits. Occupancy/range (3 studies): Two of three studies (including two site comparisons and one controlled study), in the USA and Canada, found that prescribed burning resulted in larger areas being occupied by black-tailed prairie dog colonies and smaller individual home ranges of Mexican fox squirrels. The third study found that prescribed burning did not increase occupancy rates of beaver lodges. BEHAVIOUR (22 STUDIES) Use (21 studies): Ten of 21 studies (including eight controlled studies and eight site comparisons with a further four being before-and-after studies), in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Tanzania and France, found that prescribed burning increased use of areas (measured either as time spent in areas or consumption of food resources) by bighorn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, elk, plains bison, Cape mountain zebrasand mouflon. Six studies found mixed effects, with responses differing among different ages or sexes of white-tailed deer, bison and elk, differing among different large herbivore species or varying over time for elk, while swift foxes denned more but did not hunt more in burned areas. The other five studies showed that prescribed burning did not increase use or herbivory by elk, black-tailed deer, white-tailed deer or mixed species groups of mammalian herbivores. Behaviour change (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that vigilance of Thomson’s gazelles did not differ between those on burned and unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2388Thu, 28 May 2020 08:57:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2428Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:34:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘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%2F2503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2503Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:47:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that coyote scent reduced food consumption by mountain beavers and white-tailed deer. The third study found that it did not reduce trail use by white-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:01:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning: Forest, open woodland & savanna Twenty-eight studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Twenty-four studies were in the USA, three were in Australia and one was in Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that in areas with prescribed burning, reptile assemblages became similar to more pristine areas that had historically experienced frequent fires. Richness/diversity (11 studies): Seven studies (including two replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burned areas had similar reptile species richness compared to unburned areas. One of the studies also found that burned areas had higher reptile diversity than unburned areas. Two replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study) in Australia and the USA found that reptile species richness remained similar with time since burning. One of two studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that burned areas had higher combined reptile and amphibian species richness than unburned areas. The other study found that burned areas had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness and diversity compared to unburned areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (26 STUDIES) Abundance (23 studies): Nine of 21 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after studies) in the USA and Australia found that burning had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles, six-lined racerunners and western yellow-bellied racer snakes. Six studies found that burned areas had a higher abundance of reptiles, lizards, black racer snakes and more active gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. The other six studies found that burned areas had a similar abundance of reptiles, lizards and gopher tortoise burrows compared to unburned areas. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that reptile abundance increased with time since burning. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that burning in different seasons had mixed effects on the abundance of reptiles. Survival (2 study): One of two studies (one site comparison and one controlled study) in the USA and Brazil found that Texas horned lizard survival was similar in burned and unburned areas. The other study found that burning had mixed effects on survival of an endemic lizard species. Condition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that eastern fence lizards in recently burned areas ran faster than those from areas that were burned less recently or were unburned. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One replicated, controlled, before and-after study in the USA found that burning affected overwintering habitat use by gopher tortoises. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that in burned areas, black racer snakes had higher surface activity than in unburned areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3646Thu, 09 Dec 2021 15:38:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting Ten studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with vegetation cutting on reptile populations. Eight studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that cutting vegetation prior to burning resulted in reptile assemblages becoming similar to areas with more pristine habitat and a history of frequent fires. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Four of five replicated studies (including three randomized, controlled studies) in Australia and the USA found that areas managed by burning in combination with vegetation cutting had similar reptile species richness compared to either burning only, cutting only or areas that were unmanaged. The other study found that areas of woodland managed by burning and vegetation thinning had higher reptile species richness than unmanaged areas. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four of nine replicated studies (including five randomized, controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that areas that were managed by burning in combination with vegetation cutting had a higher abundance of overall reptiles, lizards, eastern fence lizards and five-lined skinks compared to areas that were either only burned or unmanaged. Three studies found a similar abundance of overall reptiles, snakes and turtles compared to either burning only, cutting only or unmanaged. Four studies found mixed effects of burning in combination with vegetation cutting on the abundance of reptiles and six-lined racerunners. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3655https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3655Fri, 10 Dec 2021 09:25:56 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with herbicide application Five studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with herbicide application on reptile populations. Four studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that reptile community composition responded differently to herbicide treatment followed by burning or burning alone when compared to unburned areas or areas of more pristine habitat. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that areas that were burned in combination with herbicide application had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness and diversity compared to areas that were managed by burning or herbicide application alone or left unmanaged. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies) in the USA found mixed effects of burning in combination with herbicide application on the abundance of reptiles and six-lined racerunners. The other study found that areas that were burned in combination with herbicide application had a similar abundance of reptiles compared to areas that were managed by burning or herbicide application alone or left unmanaged. The study also found that the abundance of eastern fence lizards was higher in the first year after burning and herbicide application compared to unmanaged areas, but similar for the next six years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that some rocky outcrops that were burned in combination with herbicide application were recolonized by pink-tailed worm-lizards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3656https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3656Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:07:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with grazing Five studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with grazing on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two studies (including one site comparison study and one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in Argentina and the USA found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas not burned or grazed for 3–12 years. The other study found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had higher species richness than lightly grazed or unmanaged areas and similar richness compared to areas that were burned only. One before-and-after study in the USA found that an area with annual prescribed burning combined with intensive early-season grazing had similar reptile species richness compared to when it was managed by alternate year prescribed burning with season-long grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Australia and Argentina found that that burning in combination with grazing had mixed effects on the abundance of reptile species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that areas where invasive para grass was removed by burning in combination with grazing had similar overall reptile and amphibian abundance compared to areas that were only burned or unmanaged. The study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas that were burned and grazed compared to those that were unmanaged. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:27:12 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue