Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntings We have found no evidence for the effects of adding 1% barley into wheat crop for corn buntings. '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%2F87https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F87Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:27:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example A total of fifteen studies from the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Switzerland (including four replicated, controlled and randomised studies and two reviews) looked at the effects of undersowing spring cereals on biodiversity. Eleven studies (including seven replicated trials, of which one controlled and three randomized and controlled, and one review) found that undersowing spring cereals benefited some birds, plants, insects, spiders and earthworms. These benefits to farmland wildlife included increases in barnacle goose abundance, densities of singing Eurasian skylark and nesting dunnock, arthropod abundance and species richness, and bumblebee, butterfly, earthworm, ground beetle, spider or springtail abundances. Five studies from Austria, Finland and the UK (including three replicated studies of which one was also controlled and randomized, and a review) found that undersowing spring cereals did not benefit invertebrates, plants, grey partridge population indicators, or nesting densities of two out of three farmland bird species. One replicated study from the UK found only one out of five bird species was found more frequently on undersown wheat stubbles than conventionally managed barley.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F136Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mosaic management’ A replicated, controlled before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus population trends changed from decreases to increases following the introduction of mosaic management. Three other waders did not show such a response. A replicated, paired sites study in the Netherlands found that black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa had higher productivity under mosaic management than other management types, and nests were less likely to be trampled by livestock.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F202https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F202Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:52:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Three studies from the UK, two replicated, found that there were higher densities of some study species on undersown fields or margins, compared with other fields, or that use of fields increased after they were undersown. One of these (reported in two places) found that not all species nested at higher densities. One replicated study from the UK found that various measures of grey partridge population health declined as the amount of undersown cereal on sites increased. A replicated study from the UK found no relationship between the amount of undersown cereals on a site and the productivity of grey partridge on that site.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F208Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:28:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 1% barley in wheat crops for corn buntingsWe have found no studies investigating the impact of adding barley to wheat on corn bunting Miliaria calandra populations.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F212https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F212Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:48:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mussel socks’ to prevent birds from attacking shellfishA randomised, replicated controlled experiment in Canada found that fewer medium-sized mussels were taken from mussel socks with a protective ‘sleeve’, compared to un-sleeved socks. There were no differences for small or large mussels.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F250Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:11:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Turn deck lights off during night-time setting of longlines to reduce bycatchA single replicated and controlled study in the South Atlantic found significantly lower bycatch rates when deck lights were turned off during line setting at night.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F284https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F284Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:11:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘cat curfews’ to reduce predation We found no evidence for the effects of ‘cat curfews’ on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F412Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:18:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Turn off lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA before-and-after study from the UK found that fewer seabirds (Manx shearwaters Puffinus puffinus, European storm petrels Hydrobates pelagicus and Leach’s storm petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were attracted to artificial lighting and downed when lighting was reduced at night, compared to when normal lighting was in place.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:24:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘anti-predator training’ to improve survival after release A review from Pakistan and a small trial from Saudi Arabia found that pheasants and bustards had higher survival after release, when given pre-release predator training, compared to birds without training, many of which were predated. The Saudi Arabian study found that introducing a model fox (as opposed to a live predator) to cages did not increase post-release survival. Introducing a live fox to the cage increased post-release survival more than other techniques used.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F637Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:49:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘flying training’ before releaseA replicated study from the Dominican Republic found that captive-reared Hispaniolan parrots Amazona ventralis had higher initial survival if they were given pre-release predator training, although this difference was not present a year after release.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F638Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:51:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'set-aside' areas of natural habitat for primate protection within mining area We found no evidence for the effects of using ‘set-aside’ areas of natural habitat for primate protection within mining 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%2F1453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1453Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:59:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'set-asides' for primate protection within logging area We found no evidence for the effects of using 'set-asides' for primate protection within logging area 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%2F1497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1497Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:50:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bracken bruiser’ to control bracken One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after, paired study in the UK found that bracken bruising increased bracken cover, though bracken cover also increased in areas where bracken bruising was not done.There was no effect on the number of plant species or plant diversity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1726Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:04:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 'warm white' rather than 'cool' LED lights We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘warm white’ LED lights rather than ‘cool’ LED lights 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%2F2020https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2020Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:01:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using ‘shock collars’ to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars (combined with loud noise) reduced damage caused by black-tailed deer to tree seedlings. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2508Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:39:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type Eleven studies examined the effects of using different bait on marine fish populations. Two studies were global systematic reviews. Three studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA, Iceland).Two studies were in the South Pacific Ocean (New Zealand). One study was in each of the Norwegian/Barents Seas (Norway), the Barents Sea (Norway), the Denmark Strait (Greenland) and the Mediterranean Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One replicated study in the South Pacific Ocean and one global systematic review found that using different bait species did not reduce hooking injuries (associated with higher post-release mortality) of undersized snapper or sharks and rays, and did not increase survival of sharks and rays on gear retrieval. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (10 studies): Six of eight replicated studies (three controlled and one randomized) in the Norwegian/Barents Seas, Barents Sea, Denmark Strait, North Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea and the South Pacific Ocean, found that using a different bait type (including size, species and manufacture method) reduced the unwanted catches of undersized haddock (although in one case in only two of six comparisons), Atlantic cod and other unwanted or non-target fish catch, but unwanted catches of torsk and ling were similar, compared to standard or other bait types. Two other studies found no reduction in unwanted catches of pelagic stingray and overall unwanted fish with different bait types. Two systematic global reviews found that using different bait types did not affect the number of unwanted sharks and rays caught. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (1 study): One replicated study in the Denmark Strait found that using a different bait species increased the size-selectivity of commercially targeted Greenland halibut. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2700Thu, 10 Dec 2020 14:26:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures One study evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using ‘mammal-safe’ nets to capture and release mammals trapped in fishing structures. The study was in the Bay of Fundy (Canada). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One controlled study in the Bay of Fundy found that using ‘marine mammal nets’ with a larger mesh size to release harbour porpoises from herring weirs resulted in lower porpoise mortality compared to using conventional herring nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2828Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:00:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants on marine and freshwater mammal 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%2F2863https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2863Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:24:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure Three studies evaluated the effects of using ‘soft start’ procedures to deter marine and freshwater mammals to reduce noise exposure. One study was in each of the South Atlantic Ocean (Gabon), the South Pacific Ocean (Australia) and various water bodies (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Behaviour change (3 studies): One study in various water bodies around the UK found that a greater proportion of cetaceans (including whales, dolphins and porpoise) avoided or moved away from vessels during ‘soft start’ procedures with seismic airguns compared to when airguns were not firing. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that during ‘soft start’ procedures using seismic airguns, a pod of short-finned whales initially moved away but remained within 900 m of the vessel as it passed by. One study in the South Pacific Ocean found that during ‘soft-start’ procedures with a small experimental airgun array, migrating humpback whales slowed their speed towards the vessel but did not significantly alter their course. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2897Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:12:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of using ‘bioremediating’ organisms to remove or neutralize pollutants. ‘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%2F3561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3561Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:47:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Sea turtles Nine studies evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on sea turtle populations. Three studies were in each of the Atlantic and Pacific, and one was in each of the Atlantic and north Pacific, the Gulf of Garbes (Tunisia) and Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) off the coast of Hawaii and in the Southern Atlantic found that the percentage of loggerhead and leatherback turtles that survived being caught by fish-baited or squid-baited hooks or fish-baited circle hooks and squid-baited J-hooks was similar. Condition (1 study): One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks deeply hooked fewer leatherback and hard-shell turtles compared to squid-baited J-hooks. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in Italy found that loggerhead turtles in a captive setting were less likely to bite at fish bait than squid bait. The study also found that smaller turtles were more likely to bite at mackerel bait and larger turtles at squid bait. OTHER (8 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (8 studies): Four of five studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled study) in the North Pacific, Eastern Pacific, Atlantic and Atlantic and North Pacific found that fish-baited hooks caught fewer sea turtles or were swallowed by fewer olive ridley turtles than squid baited hooks. One study also found that fish bait in combination with larger circle hooks lead to the highest percentage of external hookings. The other study found mixed effects of using fish or squid-baited hooks on the unwanted catch of hard-shell and leatherback turtles. One replicated, controlled study in the north-western Atlantic Ocean found that fish-baited J-hooks caught fewer sea turtles compared to squid-baited hooks. The study also found that unwanted catch was more similar for fish-baited and squid-baited circle hooks. One before-and-after study off the coast of Hawaii found that fish-baited circle hooks caught fewer loggerhead and leatherback turtles compared to compared to squid-baited J-hooks. One replicated study in the Gulf of Garbes found that hooks baited with stingray caught fewer loggerhead turtles compared to fish-baited hooks. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3612Thu, 09 Dec 2021 12:02:07 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a different bait type: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using a different bait type on crocodilian 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%2F3615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3615Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:23:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ‘warmer’ (red/yellow) lighting rather than other lighting colours Five studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using ‘warmer’ (red/yellow) lighting rather than other lighting colours. Two studies were in the Netherlands and one study was in each of Germany, Slovenia and the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized, paired study and two paired studies) in Germany, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK found that fewer individual moths, and moth species, were attracted to yellow, green, white or red lights (which in one case also emitted at a lower intensity) than to UV, actinic, blue or conventional metal halide lights. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the Netherlands found that four moth species spent more time feeding under red lights than under white or green lights, but less time feeding than when in complete darkness. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3906https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3906Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:23:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Undersow spring cereals, with clover for example Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of undersowing spring cereals. One study was in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher species richness of butterflies than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar species richness of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that spring barley undersown with a mix of grasses and legumes had a higher abundance of butterflies, but a lower abundance of caterpillars, than extensively or conventionally managed grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, including undersown cereals, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field agri-environment scheme BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3926Thu, 11 Aug 2022 17:09:12 +0100
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