Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial nest sites for solitary beesWe have captured 30 replicated trials of nest boxes for solitary bees in 10 countries, including Europe, North and South America and Asia. Twenty-nine of these trials showed occupancy by bees. Many species of solitary bee readily nest in the boxes, including some species considered endangered in a study on farmland in Germany, oil-collecting species of the genus Centris in South America and a recently discovered species in lowland tropical forest in Costa Rica. One trial in temperate forest in Canada recorded no bees using nest boxes. A set of replicated experiments in Germany estimated that four medium to large European species of solitary bee have a foraging range of 150 to 600 m, so nest boxes must be within this distance of foraging resources. Twenty-three replicated trials have shown nest boxes of cut hollow stems or tubes being occupied by solitary bees. Eleven trials demonstrated occupation of blocks of wood drilled with holes. Two trials in Neotropical secondary forest (one in Brazil, one in Mexico) showed that particular solitary bee species will nest in wooden boxes, without stems or confining walls inside. Two replicated trials have compared reproductive success in different nest box designs. One showed that reed stem and wooden grooved-board nest boxes produced more bees/nest than four other types. Nest boxes with plastic-lined holes, or plastic or paper tubes were much less productive, due to parasitism or mould. The other, a small trial, found nests of the oil-collecting bee Centris analis in Brazil were more productive in cardboard straws placed in drilled wooden holes than in grooved wooden boards stacked together. Three trials on agricultural land, one on a carpenter bee in India, one on a range of species in Germany and one on species of Osmia in the USA, have shown that the number of occupied solitary bee nests can double over three years with repeated nest box provision at a given site. One small replicated trial compared populations of solitary bees in blueberry fields in the USA with and without nest boxes over three years. The estimated number of foraging Osmia bees had increased in fields with nest boxes, compared to fields without nest boxes. Eleven replicated trials have recorded solitary bees in nest boxes being attacked by parasites or predators. Rates of mortality and parasitism have been measured in 10 studies. Mortality rates range from 13% mortality for cavity-nesting bees and wasps combined in Germany (2% were successfully parasitized), or 2% of bee brood cells attacked in shade coffee and cacao plantations in central Sulawesi, Indonesia, to 36% parasitism and 20% other mortality (56% mortality overall) for the subtropical carpenter bee Xylocopa fenestrata in India. Two replicated trials of the use of drilled wooden nest boxes by bees in California, USA, showed that introduced European earwigs Forficula auricularia and introduced European leafcutter bee species use the boxes. In one trial, these introduced species more commonly occupied the boxes than native bees. A small trial tested three soil-filled nest boxes for the mining bee Andrena flavipes in the UK, but they were not occupied.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F47Thu, 20 May 2010 07:16:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce management intensity on permanent grasslands (several interventions at once) A total of 32 individual studies from the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects on farmland wildlife of reducing management intensity on permanent grasslands. Twenty-two studies found benefits to some or all wildlife groups studied. Eleven studies (including four replicated site comparisons and three reviews) found reduced management intensity on permanent grassland benefited plants. Sixteen studies (including eight site comparisons of which four paired and three reviews) found benefits to some or all invertebrates. Five studies (including two replicated site comparisons, of which one paired, and a review) found positive effects on some or all birds. Twenty-one studies from six European countries found no clear effects of reducing management intensity on some or all plants, invertebrates or birds. Seven studies (including two replicated paired site comparisons and a review) found no clear effect on plants. Ten studies (including four site comparisons and one paired site comparison) found mixed or no effects on some or all invertebrates. Two studies (one review, one site comparison) found invertebrate communities on less intensively managed grasslands were distinct from those on intensively managed grasslands. Four studies (including three site comparisons, of which one paired and two replicated) found no clear effects on bird numbers or species richness. Five studies from four European countries found negative effects of reducing management intensity on plants, invertebrates or birds. Two studies (one review, one replicated trial) found some plant species were lost under extensive management. Two studies (one paired site comparison) found more invertebrates in grasslands with intensive management. One paired site comparison found fewer wading birds on grasslands with reduced management intensity than on conventionally managed grassland.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F69Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:11:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce tillage A total of 42 individual studies (including seven replicated, controlled and randomized studies and six reviews) from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Switzerland and the UK investigated the effects of reducing tillage on farmland wildlife. Thirty-four studies (of which 21 were replicated and controlled and seven also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found some positive effects on earthworms, some invertebrates (other than earthworms), weeds or farmland birds, of reducing tillage compared to conventional management. Positive effects included increased biomass, species richness or abundance of earthworms, greater abundance of some invertebrates other than earthworms, increased numbers of some weeds and/or weed species, higher Eurasian skylark nest density, earlier laying date and shorter foraging distances on reduced tillage fields, and greater abundance of some birds - including Eurasian skylark, seed-eating songbirds and gamebirds in late winter on non-inversion or conservation tillage. A review found tillage had negative effects on invertebrate numbers and no-till systems had more invertebrate bird food resources. Twenty-six studies (of which 13 replicated and controlled and three also randomized, and five reviews) from nine European countries found reducing tillage had either negative, no effect or no consistent effects on abundance, biomass, or species richness of some invertebrates (other than earthworms), earthworm abundance, biomass, or species richness, number of different plant species found as seeds, number of some weed species, mammal abundance, some bird species, and one study found bird preferences for conservation tillage fields decreased over time. Two studies found that crop type affected the number of weeds under different tillage regimes. One small replicated trial in the UK compared bird numbers under two different forms of reduced tillage, and found more birds from species that make up the ‘Farmland Bird Index’ on broadcast than non-inversion tillage fields. Two studies looked at the long-term effects of reduced tillage on earthworms (after ten years). One study found higher earthworm biomass under reduced tillage, the other study found earthworm abundance was the same between conventional and reduced tillage plots. Three of the studies mentioned above did not distinguish between the effects of reducing tillage and reduced pesticide and/or fertilizer inputs.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F126Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:00:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce fertilizer, pesticide or herbicide use generally Of 38 individual studies from Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK investigating the effects of reducing fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides, 34 studies (23 replicated, of which six also controlled and randomized, one review and one systematic review) found benefits to some invertebrates, plants, or farmland birds. Twenty-five studies (16 replicated, of which seven also randomized and controlled and one review) found negative, mixed, minimal or no effects on some invertebrates, farmland birds or plants. Ten studies (six replicated, controlled studies of which two randomized) from three countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping pesticide applications on invertebrates, plants, or birds. Eight studies (two replicated controlled and randomized, one paired before-and-after trial) from four countries found inconsistent or no effects on some invertebrates or birds. Ten studies (nine replicated, five also controlled and a European systematic review) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping herbicide use on plants, invertebrates, and birds. Five replicated studies (two also controlled and randomized) from three countries found no or mixed effects on birds, invertebrates and plants. Five studies (three replicated controlled of which two randomized) from four countries found positive effects of reducing or stopping fertilizer applications on invertebrates, Eurasian skylark, or plants. Four studies (three replicated, controlled and randomized) from two countries found reducing or stopping fertilizer inputs had no, or no consistent effects on some invertebrates and farmland birds. Two studies from the UK (one replicated) found plots where fertilizer inputs were not reduced tended to have higher earthworm biomass or abundance. Fifteen studies (three replicated controlled of which one also randomized, five site comparisons and one review) from seven countries looked at the effects of reducing or stopping applications of two or more inputs: pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers. Thirteen studies found positive effects of reducing two or more inputs on some or all invertebrates, plants, soil organisms, and birds studied. Seven studies found negative or no effects of reducing combinations of inputs on some invertebrates, plants or birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F139Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:06:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant wild bird seed or cover mixture All seven studies (based on five replicated experiments and a review) that investigated species richness or diversity were from the UK and found that fields or farms with wild bird cover had higher bird diversity than those without, or that more species were found in wild bird cover than in surrounding habitats. Thirty-two studies out of 33 from the UK and North America that examined abundance and population data, found that bird densities, abundances, nesting densities or use of wild bird cover was higher than in other habitats or management regimes, or that sites with wild bird cover had higher populations than those without. These studies included a systematic review and seven randomised, replicated and controlled studies. Some studies found that this was the case across all species or all species studied, while others found that only a subset showed a preference. Four studies investigated other interventions at the same time. Thirteen of the 33 studies (all replicated and from Europe and the USA), found that bird populations or densities were similar on wild bird cover and other habitats, that some species were not associated with wild bird cover or that birds rarely used wild bird cover. Three studies from the UK and Canada, two replicated, found higher productivities for some or all species monitored on wild bird cover, compared to other habitats. Two replicated and controlled studies from Canada and France found no differences in reproductive success between wild bird cover and other habitats for some or all species studied. Three studies from Europe and the USA investigated survival, with two finding higher survival of grey partridge Perdix perdix released on wild bird cover or of artificial nests in some cover crops. The third found that survival of grey partridge was lower on farms with wild bird cover, possibly due to high predation. Five studies from the UK, three replicated, found that some wild bird cover crops were preferred to others. A randomised, replicated and controlled study and a review from the UK found that the landscape surrounding wild bird cover and their configuration within it affected use by birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F187Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase reproductive success Two studies from the USA found evidence for higher population densities of magpies and American blackbirds in areas provided with supplementary food, whilst two studies from the UK and Canada found that population densities did not appear to be affected by feeding. Twelve studies from across the world found that breeding productivity was higher for fed birds than controls. The increases were through higher hatching or fledging rates, or higher chick survival or recruitment rates. One study from the USA found that these increases were only found in dry years. Eleven studies from Europe and the USA found that fed birds had no higher, or even lower breeding productivity or chick survival than control birds. Nine studies from Europe and North America found that the eggs of fed birds were larger or heavier, or that the chicks of fed birds were in better physical condition: being larger, heavier, faster growing, more symmetrical or having a better immune response. In one study this was only true in a heavily polluted site. However, eight studies from across the world found no evidence for better condition or increased size in the eggs or chicks of fed birds. Six studies from across the world found that food-supplemented pairs laid larger clutches than unfed birds, whilst 14 studies from Europe and North America found that fed birds did not lay larger clutches, or even laid smaller ones. Fifteen studies from across the world found that birds supplied with supplementary food began nesting or laying earlier than controls, although in two studies this was only true for young females or in one of two habitats. In one study, a high fat, high protein diet had a greater effect on laying date than a high fat, low protein diet.­ One study found that fed birds had shorter incubations than controls whilst another found that fed birds re-nested quicker than controls and had shorter second incubations. Four studies from the USA and Europe found that fed birds did not lay any earlier than controls. Seven studies from across the world found that fed parent birds showed positive behavioural responses to feeding, such as being more likely to re-nest, less likely to be parasitized or  showing better anti-predator responses, spending more time incubating or building larger nests. Three studies from across the world found neutral or negative responses to feeding, including being more likely to be invaded by conspecifics, making no more breeding attempts or showing no preference for fed nest boxes compared to controls.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F537Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for songbirds to increase adult survival Seven studies from Europe and the USA found higher densities or larger populations in various songbird species in areas close to supplementary food. Six studies from Europe, Canada and Japan found that population trends or densities in some species were no different between fed and unfed areas. The American study found that populations appeared to follow food, with populations increasing after feeders were erected and decreasing after they were removed. Four studies from Canada, Europe, Japan and the USA found that birds had higher survival when supplied with supplementary food. However, in two studies this was only apparent in females or in one of two species studied. A controlled study in the USA found no evidence that birds were dependent on supplementary food: when food was removed, previously fed birds did not have lower survival than controls. A replicated, controlled study from the USA found that song sparrows Melospiza melodia had lower survival with feeding stations in their territories. Six studies from Europe and the USA found that birds supplied with supplementary food were in better physical condition or had larger fat supplies than unfed birds. However, in one replicated, controlled study this was only the case for females; in another two, only one of three species showed better condition, with one species in one study showing lower condition when fed; a final replicated and controlled study found that differences between treatments were only apparent in the breeding season. Two studies investigated the effect of feeding on behaviours: a randomised, replicated and controlled study in the USA found that male Carolina wrens Thryothorus ludovicianus spent more time singing when supplied with food; a replicated, controlled study in Sweden found no behavioural differences between wood nuthatches Sitta europaea supplied with food, and unfed birds. Thirteen studies from the UK, Canada and the USA investigated use of feeders. Four studies from the USA and the UK found high use of supplementary food by several species, with up to 21% of birds’ daily energy needs coming from feeders. However, another UK study found very low use of food, possibly because the feeder was not positioned close to natural food sources. One UK study found that use of feeders peaked in midwinter, although another found that the exact timing of peak use varied between species. Two replicated trials from the UK finding that the use of feeders increased with distance to houses and decreased with distance to cover, whilst a replicated Candadian study found that American goldfinches Carduelis tristis preferred using bird feeders in high positions. A large-scale replicated study in the UK found that preferences for feeder locations varied between species. Three studies from the UK argue that placing feeders over 1 km apart, and possibly 1.1–1.3 km apart will maximise their use whilst keeping the intervention practical.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F552Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:27:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding frogs Thirty-three studies investigated the success of breeding frogs in captivity. Twenty-three of 33 studies, three of which were reviews and 30 replicated studies, across the world found that amphibians produced egg in captivity, in four cases by captive-bred females. Seven found mixed results, with some species of frogs or 17–50% of captive populations  reproducing successfully in captivity, but with other species difficult to maintain or raise to adults. One found that frogs did not breed successfully in captivity and another that all breeding frogs died. Seventeen of the studies found that captive-bred frogs were raised successfully to hatching, tadpoles, froglets or adults in captivity. One found that froglet survival was low and another that three species were not successfully raised to adulthood. Four replicated studies (including one small study) in,Canada, Fiji, Hong Kong and Italy found that 30–88% of eggs hatched or survival to metamorphosis was 75%, as froglets was 17–51% or to adults was 50–90% in captivity. One review and four replicated studies (including two small studies) in Germany, Italy and the USA found that reproductive success of frogs in captivity depended on temperature or a simulated wet and dry season, but not on whether frogs were housed in high or low maintenance facilities. Three replicated studies (including one small study) in Germany, Australia and Canada found that egg or tadpole development in captivity was affected by parental care, density or temperature.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F835Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:25:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings Thirty-two studies investigated the effectiveness of installing culverts or tunnels as road crossings for amphibians. Six of seven studies (including three replicated studies) in Canada, Germany, Italy, Hungary and the USA found that installing culverts or tunnels significantly decreased amphibian road deaths; in one study this was the case only when barrier fencing was also installed. One found no effect on road deaths. Fifteen of 24 studies (including one review and 17 replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA found that culverts/tunnels were used by amphibians, by 15–85% of amphibians or 3–15 species, or that 23–100% of culverts or tunnels were used by amphibians or used in 12 of 14 studies reviewed. The majority of culverts/tunnels had barrier fencing to guide amphibians to entrances. Four found mixed effects depending on species, or for toads depending on the site or culvert type. Five found that culverts were used by less than 10% of amphibians or were not used. The use of culverts/tunnels was affected by diameter in three of six studies, with wider culverts used more, length in one of two studies, with long culverts avoided, lighting in all three studies, with mixed effects, substrate in three of six studies, with natural substrates used more, presence of water in two of three studies, with mixed effects, entrance location in one and tunnel climate in one study. Six studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and USA investigated the use of culverts with flowing water and found that they were used by amphibians, or rarely used by salamanders or not used, and were used more or the same amount as dry culverts. Certain culvert designs were not suitable for amphibians; one-way tunnels with vertical entry chutes resulted in high mortality of common toads and condensation deposits from steel culverts had very high metal concentrations. One study found that thousands of amphibians were still killed on the road.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:20:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bat boxes for roosting bats Forty-four studies evaluated the effects of providing bat boxes for roosting bats on bat populations. Twenty-seven studies were in Europe, nine studies were in North America, four studies were in Australia, two studies were in South America, and one study was a worldwide review. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (44 STUDIES) Uptake (9 studies): Nine replicated studies in Europe and the USA found that the number of bats using bat boxes increased by 2–10 times up to 10 years after installation. Use (43 studies): Forty-one of 43 studies (including 34 replicated studies and two reviews) in Europe, the USA, South America, and Australia found that bats used bat boxes installed in forest or woodland, forestry plantations, farmland, pasture, wetlands, urban areas and buildings, bridges, underpasses or unknown habitats. The other two studies in the USA and UK found that bats displaced from buildings did not use any of 43 bat houses of four different designs or 12 heated bat boxes of one design. One review of 109 studies across Europe, North America and Asia found that 72 bat species used bat boxes, although only 18 species commonly used them, and 31 species used them as maternity roosts. Twenty-two studies (including 17 replicated studies, one before-and-after study and two reviews) found bats occupying less than half of bat boxes provided (0–49%). Nine replicated studies found bats occupying more than half of bat boxes provided (54–100%). OTHER (23 STUDIES) Bat box design (16 studies): Three studies in Germany, Portugal and Australia found that bats used black bat boxes more than grey, white or wooden boxes. One of two studies in Spain and the USA found higher occupancy rates in larger bat boxes. One study in the USA found that bats used both resin and wood cylindrical bat boxes, but another study in the USA found that resin bat boxes became occupied more quickly than wood boxes. One study in the UK found higher occupancy rates in concrete than wooden bat boxes. One study in the USA found that Indiana bats used rocket boxes more than wooden bat boxes or bark-mimic roosts. One study in Spain found that more bats occupied bat boxes that had two compartments than one compartment in the breeding season. One study in Lithuania found that bat breeding colonies occupied standard and four/five chamber bat boxes and individuals occupied flat bat boxes. Four studies in the USA, UK, Spain and Australia found bats selecting four of nine, three of five, three of four and one of five bat box designs. One study in the UK found that different bat box designs were used by different species. One study in Costa Rica found that bat boxes simulating tree trunks were used by 100% of bats and in group sizes similar to natural roosts. Bat box position (11 studies): Three studies in Germany, Spain and the USA found that bat box orientation and/or the amount of exposure to sunlight affected bat occupancy, and one study in Spain found that orientation did not have a significant effect on occupancy. Two studies in the UK and Italy found that bat box height affected occupancy, and two studies in Spain and the USA found no effect of height. Two studies in the USA and Spain found higher occupancy of bat boxes on buildings than on trees. One study in Australia found that bat boxes were occupied more often in farm forestry sites than in native forest, one study in Poland found higher occupancy in pine relative to mixed deciduous stands, and one study in Costa Rica found higher occupancy in forest fragments than in pasture. One study in the USA found higher occupancy rates in areas where bats were known to roost prior to installing bat boxes. One review in the UK found that bat boxes were more likely to be occupied when a greater number of bat boxes were installed across a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1024Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:17:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forests: effects on understory plants Seventeen of 25 studies (including four replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Spain and the USA found that thinning trees in forests increased the density and cover of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect or mixed effects. One study found a decrease in the abundance of herbaceous species. Thirteen of 19 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies) in Argentina, Canada, Sweden, the USA and West Africa found that thinning trees in forests increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. Seven studies found no effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1211Fri, 20 May 2016 08:24:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed fire: effect on understory plants Eight of 22 studies (including seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from the USA, Australia and Canada found that prescribed fire increased the cover, density and biomass of understory plants. Six of the studies found it decreased plant cover. Eight found no effect or mixed effects on cover and density of understory plants. Fourteen of 24 studies (including ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies) from the USA, Australia, France and West Africa found that prescribed fire increased species richness and diversity of understory plants. One study found that it decreased species richness.  Nine found no effect or mixed effects on species richness and diversity of understory plants.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1221https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1221Mon, 23 May 2016 08:21:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use no tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (20 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Fourteen replicated studies (eleven randomized and controlled, one controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less organic matter in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more organic matter, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with or without tillage. Nutrients (19 studies) Nitrogen (18 studies): Six replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared soil with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, controlled studies from Spain and the USA sometimes found more nitrogen and sometimes found less nitrogen in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with or without tillage. Phosphorus (5 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found less phosphorus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without tillage. Potassium (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA sometimes found more potassium and sometimes found less potassium in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with or without tillage. pH (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found lower pH levels in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar pH levels in soils with or without tillage. Soil organisms (18 studies) Microbial biomass (13 studies): Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) from Italy and Spain found more microbial biomass in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more microbial biomass, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with or without tillage. Earthworms (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one controlled, one site comparison) from the USA found more earthworms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from the USA found similar numbers of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. However, one of these studies found different communities of nematodes in soils with or without tillage. Mites (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found different communities of mites, but similar numbers of mites, in soils with or without tillage. Other soil organisms (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of denitrifying bacteria in soils with or without tillage. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more microorganisms in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found more fungus in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies): Seven replicated studies (six randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Spain and the USA found that soils without tillage were more stable than tilled soils, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soils without tillage were sometimes more stable, and were sometimes less stable, than tilled soils. Greenhouse gases (10 studies) Carbon dioxide (7 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy and Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less carbon dioxide in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain sometimes found more carbon dioxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without tillage. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more nitrous oxide, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with or without tillage. Methane (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found less methane in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain sometimes found more methane, and sometimes found less, in soils without tillage, compared to soils with tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with or without tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more organic matter in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, compared to a short time, in one comparison. This study also found greater stability in soils that had not been tilled for a long time, in some comparisons.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1369Mon, 15 May 2017 14:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Use reduced tillage in arable fieldsOrganic matter (14 studies): One meta-analysis from multiple Mediterranean countries found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Eleven replicated studies (ten randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, Syria, and the USA found more organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of organic matter in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. No studies found less organic matter in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Nutrients (15 studies) Nitrogen (14 studies): Seven replicated studies (five randomized and controlled, one site comparison) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Three of these studies also found less nitrogen in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found less nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, Syria, and the USA found similar amounts of nitrogen in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Phosphorus (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Potassium (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of potassium in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in all comparisons. pH (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar pH levels in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil organisms (16 studies) Microbial biomass (15 studies): Eleven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and Syria found less microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar amounts of microbial biomass in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Bacteria (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more denitrifying bacteria in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Other soil organisms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found similar numbers of mites and nematodes, but differences in mite and nematode communities, in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated site comparison from the USA found more earthworms in fields with fewer passes of the plough, in one of three comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (9 studies) Soil aggregation (8 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found that soil aggregates had higher water-stability in plots with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found that soil aggregates had lower water-stability in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that water-stability was similar in plots with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more large aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in one of two comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found smaller aggregates in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar amounts of aggregation in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Soil erosion (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found less erosion with less tillage (one pass with the tractor, compared to two), but found more erosion with shallower tillage, compared to deeper. Greenhouse gases (11 studies) Carbon dioxide (9 studies): Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found more carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found less carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Three controlled studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Nitrous oxide (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage, in all comparisons. Methane (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found similar amounts of methane in soils with reduced tillage or conventional tillage. Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Egypt found that less soil was lost in runoff water from plots that were tilled at slower tractor speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1371Mon, 15 May 2017 14:50:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Other biodiversity: Exclude grazersAmphibians (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in wet grasslands in the USA found no difference in the abundance of Yosemite toads between areas with cattle excluded and grazed areas. Birds (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found more bird species, and more species that were nesting, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. Two replicated site comparisons in desert and wetlands found higher abundances of some or all species of birds in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. The wetland study also found lower abundances, in some comparisons. Fish (2 studies): One replicated site comparison in grasslands in the USA found higher biomass and abundance of golden trout in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas. Another one found fewer trout nests in part of a stream with a livestock exclosure, compared to part without a livestock exclosure. Invertebrates (5 studies): Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found more species or families of invertebrates in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, for some or all groups. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found fewer aquatic invertebrate species in areas with cattle excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Two replicated studies (one randomized and controlled) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in invertebrate abundance between ungrazed and cattle-grazed plots. One replicated, before-and-after site comparison in grasslands in the USA found that populations of a threatened, endemic butterfly declined in sites with cattle excluded, but also declined in cattle-grazed sites. Mammals (4 studies): Two replicated site comparisons in deserts and grasslands in Spain and the USA found more mammal species in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas. One of these studies also found higher mammal diversity, and both studies found higher mammal abundance, in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of black-tailed hares in ungrazed sites, compared to grazed sites, and one replicated, randomized, controlled study in wooded grassland in the USA found no difference in ground squirrel abundance between ungrazed plots and cattle-grazed plots. Plants (41 studies) Abundance (38 studies): Thirty-two studies (13 replicated, randomized, and controlled) in grasslands, shrublands, wetlands, deserts, and mixed habitats in the USA, Israel, Chile, Spain, and Australia found higher biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or lower cover of non-native species), in areas with cattle, sheep, goats, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Fourteen studies (four replicated, randomized and controlled) from the USA, Israel, Spain, and Australia found lower biomass, cover, or abundance of some or all plant groups (or higher cover of non-native species), in areas with grazers excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Five replicated, controlled studies (four randomized) in grasslands in the USA found no difference in the cover of plants (and/or non-native plants) between ungrazed and grazed areas. Diversity (19 studies): Five studies (three replicated) in forests, shrublands, and grasslands in Israel, Spain, and the USA found more species, or fewer non-native species, in areas with cattle or sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Nine studies in grasslands and shrublands in Australia, Israel, Spain, and the USA found fewer species or native species, larger decreases in the number of species, or smaller increases in the number of species, in areas with cattle, sheep, or alpacas excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some or all comparisons. Six studies in grasslands, wetlands, and deserts in the USA found no differences in the number of species between areas grazed by cattle, sheep, or alpacas, and ungrazed areas. Four studies in shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands in the USA and Israel found higher plant diversity, or different community composition, in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in wetlands and grasslands in the USA found lower plant diversity in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Three studies in deserts and shrublands in the USA and Israel found no difference in plant diversity between plots with cattle or sheep excluded and grazed plots. Survival (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study along creeks in the USA found that similar percentages of planted willows survived in pastures with or without cattle excluded. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in grasslands in the USA found higher plant survival in plots with cattle excluded, compared to grazed plots, in some comparisons. Reptiles (1 study): One replicated site comparison in desert in the USA found lower abundances of reptiles, and of some reptile species, in areas with sheep excluded, compared to grazed areas, in some comparisons. Implementation options (1 study): One site comparison in the USA found that more plant species were found in historically cultivated sites that were ungrazed, compared to grazed, but similar numbers of plant species were found in historically uncultivated sites that were ungrazed or grazed.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1417Fri, 19 May 2017 11:18:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rewet peatland (raise water table) Thirty-six studies evaluated the effects of rewetting (without planting) on peatland vegetation. Fifteen studies were in bogs (two being restored as fens). Fifteen studies were in fens or fen meadows (two were naturally forested). Six studies were in general or unspecified peatlands. Some studies were based on the same experimental set-up or sites as each other: two studies in Germany, three studies in Sweden, two studies in west Finland and two studies in south Finland. Plant community composition (13 studies): Six before-and-after studies (four also replicated) in peatlands in Finland, Hungary, Sweden, Poland and Germany reported changes in the overall plant community composition following rewetting. Typically, drier grassland communities were replaced by more wetland- or peatland-characteristic communities. One replicated, paired, controlled study in a bog in the Czech Republic found that rewetted plots developed a different plant community to drained plots. Three site comparison studies in Finland and Canada reported that rewetted peatlands contained a different plant community to natural peatlands. Three replicated studies in peatlands in the UK and fens in Germany reported that rewetting typically had no effect, or insignificant effects, on the plant community. Characteristic plants (11 studies): Five studies (including one replicated site comparison) in peatlands in Canada, the UK, China and Poland reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased the abundance of wetland- or peatland-characteristic plants. Two replicated site comparison studies in fens or fen meadows in central Europe found that rewetting reduced the number of fen-characteristic plant species. Two studies (one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in fens in Sweden reported that rewetting had no effect on cover of fen-characteristic plants. Two before-and-after studies in fens in the USA and New Zealand reported that upland plant cover decreased following rewetting.  Moss cover (19 studies): Twelve studies (five replicated, two also paired and controlled) in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Latvia, Canada and Spain reported that rewetting bogs, fens or other peatlands (sometimes along with other interventions) increased Sphagnum moss cover or abundance. Three of these studies reported mixed responses by species. Two additional replicated studies, in bogs in Latvia and forested fens in Finland, reported that rewetting had no effect on Sphagnum cover. Five studies (one paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Finland, Sweden and Canada reported that rewetting bogs or fens had no effect on cover of non-Sphagnum mosses (or mosses/lichens). However, two controlled studies in bogs in Ireland and the UK reported that rewetting reduced cover of non-Sphagnum mosses or bryophytes. One site comparison study in Finland reported that a rewetted peatland had similar moss cover (Sphagnum and total) to a natural peatland, but another site comparison study in Canada reported that a rewetted bog had lower moss cover (Sphagnum and other) than nearby target peatlands. Herb cover (25 studies): Twenty-one studies (including four replicated, paired, controlled) reported that rewetting (sometimes along with other interventions) increased cover of at least one group of herbs. These studies were in bogs, fens or other peatlands in the UK, Finland, Ireland, the Czech Republic, the USA, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, China, Latvia, Poland, Canada and Spain. Specifically, rewetting increased other/total sedge cover in 13 of 15 studies, increased cottongrass cover in eight of nine studies, and increased reed/rush cover in five of seven studies. Three of four before-and-after studies in peatlands in the UK and Sweden reported that rewetting reduced purple moor grass cover; the other study reported no effect. One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland reported that rewetting had no effect on total herb cover. Two site comparison studies in Europe reported greater herb cover in rewetted than natural peatlands (overall and sedges/rushes, but not forbs). Tree/shrub cover (13 studies): Ten studies (including two paired and controlled) in peatlands in Finland, the UK, Germany, Latvia and Canada reported that rewetting typically reduced (seven studies) or had no effect (six studies) on tree and/or shrub cover. Two before-and-after studies in fens in Sweden and Germany reported that rewetting increased tree/shrub cover. One before-and-after study in a bog in the UK reported mixed effects of rewetting on different tree/shrub species. Overall vegetation cover (4 studies): Of four before-and-after studies (three also controlled) that examined the effect of rewetting on overall vegetation cover, two in bogs in Ireland and Sweden reported that rewetting increased it. One study in a fen in New Zealand reported that rewetting reduced vegetation cover. One study in a peatland in Finland reported no effect. Overall plant richness/diversity (14 studies): Six studies (including one replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after) in Sweden, Germany and the UK reported that rewetting increased total plant species richness or diversity in bogs, fens or other peatlands. However, five studies found no effect: in bogs in the Czech Republic and Latvia, fens in Sweden and Germany, and forested fens in Finland. One study in fen meadows in the Netherlands found scale-dependent effects. One paired, controlled, before-and-after study in a peatland in Finland reported that rewetting reduced plant diversity. Of four studies that compared rewetted and natural peatlands, two in Finland and Germany reported lower species richness in rewetted peatlands, one in Sweden found higher species richness in rewetted fens, and one in Europe found similar richness in rewetted and natural fens. Growth (1 study): One replicated site comparison study in forested fens in Finland found that rewetting increased Sphagnum moss growth to natural levels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1756Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:33:59 +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 holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release captive-bred individuals to re-establish or boost populations in native range Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred mammals to establish or boost populations in their native range. Seven studies were in the USA, three were in Australia and Italy, two studies were in each of Canada, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa and one study was in each of France, Africa, Europe, and North America, Estonia, the USA and Mexico, Poland and China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of five studies (one replicated) and two reviews in Saudi Arabia, Australia, the USA, South Africa, France, the Netherlands and China found that following release of captive-bred (or in one case captive-reared, or including translocated) animals, populations of mountain gazelles, Corsican red deer, Père David's deer, Eurasian otters and swift foxes increased. The two reviews found that following release of mainly translocated but some captive-bred large carnivores, populations of four of six species increased, and over half of mammal release programmes were considered successful. Reproductive success (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated) in Saudi Arabia, the UK and the Netherlands found that released captive-bred (and in some cases some wild-born translocated) mountain gazelles, dormice and some Eurasian otters reproduced successfully and female Arabian oryx reproduced successfully regardless of prior breeding experience. A controlled study in Italy found that released captive-born Apennine chamois reproduced in similar numbers to wild-caught translocated chamois. Survival (24 studies): Four of three controlled studies (two replicated) and two reviews in Canada, Canada and the USA, Sweden, Italy and across the world found that released captive-bred swift foxes, European otters and mammals from a review of 49 studies had lower post-release survival rates than did wild-born translocated animals. The other study found that released captive-born Apennine chamois survived in similar numbers to wild-caught translocated chamois. Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that released captive-born Key Largo woodrats, Vancouver Island marmots and swift fox pups had lower survival rates than wild-born, wild-living animals. One of the studies also found that Vancouver Island marmots released at two years old were more likely to survive than those released as yearlings. Eleven studies (three replicated) in Italy, Sweden, the UK, Estonia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Australia and the USA found that following the release of captive-bred (and in some cases some wild-born translocated) animals, Arabian oryx, populations of European otters, European mink and mountain gazelle survived for 2-11 years, roe deer and over a third of brush-tailed rock-wallabies, black-footed ferrets and brown hares survived for 0.5-24 months and dormice populations survived three months to over seven years. A review in Australia found that release programmes for macropod species resulted in successful establishment of populations in 61% of cases and that 40% survived over five years, and another review in Australia found that over half of programmes were considered successful. Two studies and a review in the USA, USA and Mexico and South Africa found that over 40% of released captive-bred American black bears were killed or had to be removed, only one of 10 oribi survived over two years and that most black-footed ferret releases were unsuccessful at maintaining a population. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two studies in the USA and Australia found that following release, most captive-bred and translocated mountain lions that had been held in captivity prior to release and most released captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies established stable home ranges. A controlled study in Italy found that released captive-born Apennine chamois remained closer to the release site than released wild-caught translocated chamois. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2476Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:11:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals Thirty-one studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of captive-bred mammals. Seven studies were in Australia, and in the USA, four were in the UK, three in Argentina, two in each of Israel, Saudi Arabia and China and one in each of Canada, Namibia, South Africa and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (30 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that a population of captive-bred Arabian sand gazelles kept in holding pens prior to release nearly doubled in size over four years. A before-and-after study in China found that following release of captive-bred animals from a pre-release enclosure into the semi-wild (free-roaming in summer, enclosed in winter and provided with food), Przewalski’s horses increased in number. Reproductive success (10 studies): Eight studies (one replicated) and one review in the UK, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Israel and Australia found that following the use of holding pens prior to release (and in some cases provision of supplementary food), captive-bred Eurasian otters, Arabian sand gazelles, eastern-barred bandicoots, some swift foxes, some red wolves and over 33% of Persian fallow deer reproduced, Arabian gazelles started breeding in the first year and the reproductive success of female Asiatic wild ass increased over 10 years. A study in Australia found that after being kept in a holding pen, all four mammal populations released into an invasive-species-free fenced enclosure reproduced. Survival (23 studies): One of three studies (two controlled, one replicated) in the UK, Canada and Australia found that using holding pens prior to release of captive-bred (and some translocated) animals resulted in greater post-release survival for water voles compared to animals released directly into the wild. The other two studies found similar survival rates for eastern barred bandicoots and swift foxes compared to animals released directly into the wild. A replicated study in the USA found that captive-bred Allegheny woodrats kept in holding pens prior to release, had higher early survival rates than those not kept in holding pens, but overall survival rates tended to be lower than wild resident woodrats. Three studies in South Africa, USA and Argentina found that released captive-bred (and some translocated) African wild dogs, riparian brush rabbits and guanacos that spent longer in, and in one case in larger, holding pens had a higher survival rate. Three studies (one controlled) in Australia and the USA found that captive-bred animals kept in holding pens prior to release had similar (bridled nailtail wallabies) or lower (black-footed ferret kits) annual survival rate after release to that of wild-born translocated animals and lower (black-footed ferrets) survival rates than resident animals. Ten studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study) and one review in Saudi Arabia, the USA, Argentina, China, Israel, Australia and Germany found that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred animals (or in some cases captive-reared/rehabilitated, or with provision of supplementary food), four of four mammal populations, 19% of red wolves, Asiatic wild ass, Persian fallow deer, most Arabian sand gazelles, most swift foxes, eastern-barred bandicoots and European mink survived at least 1-10 years, over half of giant anteaters, hare-wallabies and Père David’s deer survived for at least 1.5-6 months. Three studies in Namibia, the USA and Australia found that that following the use of holding pens prior to release of captive-bred or reared animals (some provided with nest boxes and/or supplementary food), red-tailed phascogales, most Mexican wolves and African wild dogs survived less than 6-12 months. Condition (4 studies): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that eastern barred bandicoots released after time in holding pens lost a similar proportion of body weight and recovered to a similar weight compared to bandicoots released directly. A controlled study in the UK found that common dormice lost weight after being put into holding pens whereas wild translocated dormice gained weight. A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies placed in holding pens prior to release lost body condition in holding pens. A before-and-after study in Australia found that captive-bred brush-tailed rock-wallabies placed in a holding pen prior to release maintained good health. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that after being kept in holding pens and provided with supplementary food, released captive-bred giant anteaters were less nocturnal in their activity patterns than released wild-born rehabilitated individuals. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2510Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:17:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use a larger mesh size Forty-two studies examined the effects of using a larger mesh size of fishing net on marine fish populations. Ten studies, and one review, were in the Atlantic Ocean (UK, Portugal, USA). Eight studies were in the Aegean Sea (Greece, Turkey). Five studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, France, North Europe) and three were in the Tasman Sea (Australia). Two studies were in each of the Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Turkey), the Pacific Ocean (USA, Chile), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (Northern Europe) and the Gulf of Mexico (Mexico). One study was in each of the English Channel (UK), the Bering Sea (USA), the Baltic Sea (Finland), the Caribbean Sea (Barbados), the Persian Gulf (Kuwait), the Bristol Channel (UK), the Barents Sea (Norway) and the Arabian Sea (India).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): One of three controlled studies (one replicated and paired, and one replicated) in the Atlantic Ocean, Baltic Sea and Bristol Channel found that larger mesh sizes improved the post-capture survival of skates and rays compared to smaller meshes. The other two found similar post-capture survival in haddock, whiting and small herring between trawl nets with larger mesh and nets of smaller mesh size. Condition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Bristol Channel reported that the condition of skates and rays at capture was better with a larger trawl codend mesh size compared to a smaller mesh. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (41 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (21 studies): Fifteen of 20 replicated studies (five controlled, two paired, eight paired and controlled, one randomized and one randomized and controlled) in the North Sea, Skagerrak/Kattegat, Aegean Sea, Caribbean Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, Tasman Sea, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and the Bristol Channel found that using a larger mesh size in a fishing net (various trawls, gillnets, seines and trammel nets) reduced the catches of unwanted (small/undersized, non-commercial, discarded) fish or fish and invertebrates combined, compared to nets with standard/smaller mesh sizes. One study found that amounts of unwanted fish were reduced with larger mesh at smaller catch sizes but were similar between large and small meshes at larger catch sizes, and one found that increasing a trawl codend mesh size reduced the unwanted catch of one of two fish species compared to a standard mesh. Three found that larger mesh sized fishing nets did not typically reduce the unwanted fish catch compared to nets of smaller mesh sizes. One study found that increasing both the mesh size and minimum size limit reduced catches of the youngest fish. Improved size-selectivity of fishing gear (23 studies): Nineteen of 21 replicated studies (eight controlled, four paired and controlled, three randomized and controlled, and one paired) and one review, in the North Sea, Aegean Sea, Baltic Sea, Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Tasman Sea, Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, Barents Sea and the Mediterranean Sea found that larger mesh sizes (both diamond and square) of the netting of various gear types improved the size-selectivity for all fish species assessed and in one, for two of three fish species, compared to smaller mesh sizes. One study found that size-selectivity for fish was not improved with larger mesh size in the netting of fish traps. The other found that increasing the codend mesh size of trawls fitted with size-sorting escape grids resulted in similar size-selectivity of the codend for fish compared to smaller codend mesh sizes. One controlled study in the English Channel found that a trawl net codend with a larger size of square mesh had similar size-selectivity for Atlantic mackerel as a smaller diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2697Thu, 03 Dec 2020 19:56:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit mesh escape panels/windows to a trawl net Thirty-eight studies examined the effects of fitting one or more mesh escape panels/windows to trawl nets on marine fish populations. Ten studies were in the North Sea (UK, Netherlands, Norway), four studies were in each of the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Sweden, Northern Europe), Kattegat and/or Skagerrak (Norway/Sweden/Denmark) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Iceland, UK, Northern Europe). Two studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and two were in the Bay of Biscay (France). One study was in each of the Irish Sea (UK), the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Bering Sea (USA), the Indian Ocean (Mozambique), the Norwegian Sea (Norway), the Pacific Ocean (Chile), the Mid-Atlantic Bight (USA), the Gulf of Maine (USA) and the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy). Two studies were reviews (Northern Europe), and one study was in a laboratory (Japan).  COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Baltic Sea found that there was no difference in survival between cod escaping from diamond mesh codends with or without square mesh escape windows. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in a laboratory found that small immature masu salmon were able to actively swim (escape) through the meshes of square mesh panels under simulated trawl conditions. OTHER (36 studies) Reduce unwanted catch (30 studies): One before-and-after study in the Baltic Sea and fourteen of 19 replicated studies (including one paired, four controlled, 10 paired and controlled, and one randomized, paired and controlled) in the North Sea, Kattegat and Skagerrak, Irish Sea, Tasman Sea, Bering Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, Mid-Atlantic Bight, Indian Ocean, Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pacific Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows of varying designs and number fitted to diamond mesh trawl nets (bottom and pelagic), reduced the unwanted catches (non-target or non-marketable species/sizes) of all fish species monitored, all but one and one of four fish species, the main unwanted fish species but only two of nine other finfish, and the total unwanted/discarded catch (fish and invertebrates combined), compared to standard diamond mesh trawl nets, and the effect varied with panel/window design, position in the net and/or fish body type, as well as catch size. The other five studies and a review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak, found that square mesh panels/windows did not reduce the unwanted catches of fish, Atlantic cod and three of three commercial bottom fish species, compared to diamond mesh nets without panels/windows. Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including three paired) in the North Sea, Northeast Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Maine, found that large diamond mesh escape panels in diamond mesh trawl nets (beam and bottom) reduced unwanted catches of cod, whiting and haddock, and discarded catch (fish and invertebrates), but not of whiting in one study, compared to nets without large diamond mesh panels, and the effect varied with panel design and vessel size. The other study found that the unwanted catches of only one of seven species/groups of non-target fish was reduced by a large diamond mesh panel. Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that new or different configurations of square mesh panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets reduced unwanted fish and cod catches, compared to existing/standard panels or windows. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that diamond mesh trawl nets with either a top square mesh escape panel or a large supported opening ('Bigeye') reduced unwanted shark, but not ray and sawfish catches compared to standard trawl nets. One before-and-after study in the Bay of Biscay found that supplementing a top square mesh escape window in a prawn trawl net with either a bottom window, a flexible escape grid or an increased mesh size diamond codend, did not reduce the unwanted hake catch Improved size selectivity of fishing gear (9 studies): One review study of mesh escape panel/window use in the Kattegat and Skagerrak and four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four paired) in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, northeast Atlantic Ocean, found that square mesh escape panels/windows in diamond mesh trawl nets improved the size selectivity of trawl nets for Atlantic cod and haddock, compared to trawl nets without panels/windows, and there was no difference compared to standard trawl nets with reduced mesh circumferences, and the effect varied with panel position and design. The other two studies found no effect on the size selectivity of undersized fish, haddock, saithe or Atlantic cod, compared to standard trawl nets. One review study of gear size selectivity in the northeast Atlantic Ocean found that the effect of fitting square mesh panels to trawl nets on haddock selectivity varied with panel mesh size, position, and time of year. One replicated, controlled study in the Norwegian Sea found no difference in the size selectivity of cod and haddock between diamond mesh trawl nets fitted with either square mesh escape windows, rigid size-sorting escape grids or a large diamond mesh codend. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2716Sat, 02 Jan 2021 12:18:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fit a size-sorting escape grid (rigid or flexible) to a prawn/shrimp trawl net Thirty studies examined the effects of fitting size-sorting escape grids to prawn/shrimp trawl nets on marine fish populations. Five studies were in the North Sea (Scotland/Norway, Belgium/Netherlands, UK, Scotland), four were in the Coral Sea (Australia) and two were in each of the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia), the Indian Ocean (Australia, Mozambique), the North Atlantic Ocean (Portugal, USA), the Pacific Ocean (Chile, USA), the Skagerrak and Kattegat (northern Europe) and the South Atlantic Ocean (Brazil). One study was in each of the Tasman Sea (Australia), the Greenland Sea (Svalbard), the Bay of Biscay (France), the Gulf of Maine (USA), the Gulf of Thailand (Vietnam), the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy), the Gulf of St Vincent (Australia), the Persian Gulf (Iran) and the Northeast Atlantic Ocean (Norway). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (30 STUDIES) Reduction of unwanted catch (30 studies): Seven of seven replicated studies (including one controlled) in the northeast Atlantic Ocean, North Sea, North Atlantic Ocean, Greenland Sea, Gulf of Thailand, Tyrrhenian Sea and the Skagerrak and Kattegat found that fitting rigid or flexible size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, to prawn/shrimp trawl nets reduced unwanted fish catches (non-commercial species and discarded commercial species/sizes) by allowing the escape of unwanted sharks and the other fish species monitored. Two of two before-and-after studies in the Gulf of Maine and Pacific Ocean found that after the introduction of size-sorting escape grids to trawl nets in fisheries for shrimp, the capture of non-target and unwanted fish was reduced compared to before grids were used. Eleven of 20 replicated studies (including one controlled and 19 paired and controlled) in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria, North Sea, Indian Ocean, Bay of Biscay, Skagerrak and Kattegat, Pacific Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of St Vincent and Persian Gulf found that prawn/shrimp trawls with size-sorting escape grids, of various types and configurations, had lower catches of all or all but one undersized or otherwise unwanted fish and shark/ray species monitored, and unwanted total catch (fish and invertebrates), compared to trawl nets without escape grids. Two found that escape grids reduced non-target catches of most sizes of whiting and plaice and larger sizes of total fish, but increased the retention of small cod and haddock. Three studies found a variable effect of fitting escape grids to shrimp/prawn trawl nets on unwanted fish catch compared to nets with no grids, and the effect varied with year, site and grid type. Three found that grids had no effect on the reduction of unwanted fish and catches were similar for all or most of the unwanted non-commercial and commercial fish species/groups and for the total unwanted catch (fish and invertebrates). The other study found that fewer unwanted fish of 10 of 11 species/groups were retained in a shrimp/prawn trawl net with an escape grid used in combination with a diamond mesh codend with the mesh orientation turned by 90°, compared to a conventional diamond mesh net with no grid. One replicated, randomized study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that the reduction in catch of unwanted sharks depended on the type of escape grid and shrimp/prawn trawl net used. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2721Mon, 18 Jan 2021 16:42:48 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use acoustic devices on fishing gear Thirty-three studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of using acoustic devices on fishing gear. Eight studies were in the North Atlantic Ocean (Canada, USA, UK), four studies were in each of the North Pacific Ocean (USA) and the North Sea (Germany, Denmark, UK), three studies were in the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Italy), two studies were in each of the Fortune Channel (Canada), the South Atlantic Ocean (Argentina, Brazil) and the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Germany, Sweden), and one study was in each of Moreton Bay (Australia), the Black Sea (Turkey), the Celtic Sea (UK), the South Pacific Ocean (Peru), the Rainbow Channel (Australia), the UK (water body not stated), the Great Belt (Denmark), Omura Bay (Japan), and the Indian Ocean (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (16 STUDIES) Behaviour change (16 studies): Twelve of 16 controlled studies (including three replicated studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Fortune Channel, the South Atlantic Ocean, Moreton Bay, the Mediterranean Sea, the Celtic Sea, the Rainbow Channel, a coastal site in the UK, the Great Belt, the North Sea, Omura Bay and the Indian Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets resulted in harbour porpoises, common bottlenose dolphins, tuxuci dolphins, finless porpoises and seals approaching nets or lines less closely, having fewer encounters or interactions with nets, or activity and sightings were reduced in the surrounding area. The other four studies found that using acoustic devices on trawl nets, float lines or simulated fishing nets did not have a significant effect on the behaviour of common bottlenose dolphins, harbour porpoises, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins or dugongs. OTHER (19 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (14 studies): Nine studies (including seven controlled studies and two before-and after studies) in the North Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the South Atlantic Ocean, the North Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, and the South Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on cod traps or fishing nets resulted in fewer collisions of humpback whales or entanglements of harbour porpoises, Franciscana dolphins, beaked whales and small cetaceans. Three studies (including two controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the North Pacific Ocean found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets resulted in fewer entanglements of some species but not others. One controlled study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that fishing nets with a ‘complete’ set of acoustic devices had fewer entanglements of harbour porpoises, but those with an ‘incomplete’ set did not. One replicated, controlled study in the North Sea and Baltic Sea found that using acoustic devices on fishing nets reduced harbour porpoise entanglements in one fishing area but not the other. Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five of six studies (including six controlled studies, one of which was replicated) in the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Pacific Ocean, a coastal site in the UK and the North Sea found that using acoustic devices reduced damage to fish catches and/or fishing nets caused by common bottlenose dolphins and seals. The other study found that acoustic devices did not reduce damage to swordfish catches by California sea lions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2808Thu, 04 Feb 2021 17:56:14 +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
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