Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use copper strips to exclude snails from nestsA single small, before-and-after study in Mauritius found no snail-caused chick mortality in 2004–7 after the installation of copper strips at seven echo parakeet Psittacula eques nest holes, compared to four fatalities in 2003–4. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F447https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F447Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:08:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clean birds following oil spills Three studies from South Africa and Australia found high survival of rehabilitated penguins and plovers or similar survival to un-oiled birds. However a large study from the USA and Canada found that rehabilitated common guillemots Uria aalge had significantly lower survival than untreated birds. Three studies from South Africa and Australia found that rehabilitated birds bred, with one finding that rehabilitated birds had similar breeding success to un-oiled birds. However, this study found that birds rehabilitated after a second spill were less likely to breed, whilst two other studies found that rehabilitated birds had lower success than un-oiled birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F448https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F448Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:12:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Relocate birds following oil spillsA replicated study in South Africa found that a higher percentage of African penguins Spheniscus demersus that were relocated following an oil spill bred at their old colonies, compared to birds which were rehabilitated after being oiled, despite fewer relocated birds being seen at their home colony. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F449Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter or prevent birds from landing on toxic pools We found no evidence for the effects of deterring or preventing birds from landing on toxic pools 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F450Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:28:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual and acoustic ‘scarers’ to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by mining or sewage Two studies found lower bird mortality or fewer birds rescued from toxic ponds when deterrent systems were used. Four of five studies found that fewer birds landed on pools with deterrents than controls, although one of these found that the effect was weaker for grebes compared to wildfowl and absent for waders. One study that used regular broadcasts of different sounds found that it had no impact on bird behaviour. Two studies investigated different systems and found that radar-operated systems were more effective than systems that worked at random intervals. One of these studies also found that loud noises were more effective than moving peregrine falcons Falco peregrinus models. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F452Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:32:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents to deter birds from landing on pools polluted by miningA randomised, replicated and controlled ex situ trial from the USA found that fewer common starlings Sturnus vulgaris consumed contaminated water when it was treated with repellents, compared to untreated water. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F453https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F453Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:51:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce pesticide or herbicide use generally A single small study from the UK investigated population level effects of reduced chemical inputs, and found that the populations of some species increased when pesticide use was restricted alongside other interventions. Three studies, two replicated, one controlled, from the UK found that some or all species were found at higher densities on sites with reduced pesticide inputs, in one case with other interventions as well. Five studies from the UK, four replicated, four controlled, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities on fields or sites with reduced chemical inputs, or were not associated with reduced inputs. A controlled before-and-after study from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix chicks had higher survival on sites with reduced pesticide applications. A replicated study from the UK found that reduced chemical inputs had a negative relationship with partridge brood size and no relationship with survival or the ratio of young to old birds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F454Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:08:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals for birdsA small scale study found that Pyrazophos reduced chick food abundance more than other foliar fungicides. A before-and-after study from Spain found that the population of griffon vultures Gyps fulvus increased in the study area following multiple interventions including the banning of strychnine. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F455Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:24:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide food for vultures to reduce mortality from diclofenacA before-and-after trial in Pakistan found that oriental white-backed vulture Gyps bengalensis mortality rates were significantly lower when supplementary food was provided, compared to when it was not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F456Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:30:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Make selective use of spring herbicides We found no evidence for the effects of selective use of spring herbicides on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F457Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:33:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilisers We found no evidence for the effects of using organic, not mineral, fertilisers on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F458Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce chemical inputs in permanent grassland managementA randomised, replicated, controlled study from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted to pasture plots with no fertiliser, compared to control plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F459Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:37:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Three studies from Europe, two replicated, found that conservation headlands were frequently used by some of all of the bird species studied, or were strongly associated with species. A review from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix populations were far larger on farms with conservation headlands and other interventions in place than other farms. Two replicated studies from Europe found that species were not associated with, or were no more abundant on, conservation headlands, compared with control fields. All four studies, three replicated, that investigated survival found higher grey partridge Perdix perdix chick or adult survival on sites with conservation headlands than control sites. One found that this difference was not significant. Five studies from Europe, four replicated, found larger grey partridge broods on farms with conservation headlands, one study found that differences were not significant. One replicated study from the UK found that fewer broods were found in fields with conservation headlands. Another replicated study from the UK found no relationship between conservation headlands and partridge brood size or young to adult ratio. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:39:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide unfertilised cereal headlands in arable fields We found no evidence describing the effects of unfertilised cereal headlands on bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F462Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:07:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips along rivers and streams We did not find any evidence describing the impact of riparian strips on reducing water pollution and how this affected bird populations. However, riparian strips also provide valuable habitats in their own right. Studies describing the use of riparian strips by birds are described in ‘Habitat restoration and creation’. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F463https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F463Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:08:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide buffer strips around in-field ponds We found no evidence describing the effect of buffer strips around in-field ponds on pollution levels and bird populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F464Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:09:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lime to reduce acidification in lakesA before-and-after study from Sweden found no difference in osprey Pandion haliaetus productivity during a period of extensive liming of acidified lakes compared to two periods without liming. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F465https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F465Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:12:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce incidental mortality from birds being attracted to artificial lights We found no evidence for reduced incidental mortality from birds being attracted to artificial lights. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F466https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F466Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:14:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Turn off lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA before-and-after study from the UK found that fewer seabirds (Manx shearwaters Puffinus puffinus, European storm petrels Hydrobates pelagicus and Leach’s storm petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa) were attracted to artificial lighting and downed when lighting was reduced at night, compared to when normal lighting was in place. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F467Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:24:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce the intensity of lighthouse beams We found no evidence for the effects of reducing the intensity of lighthouse beams on bird mortality. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F468Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:25:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Shield lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA replicated, controlled study in Hawaii found that fewer Newell’s shearwaters Puffinus newelli were found grounded when security lights were shielded, compared to nights when they were not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F469Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:27:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flashing lights to reduce mortality from artificial lightsA randomised, replicated and controlled trial from the USA found that fewer dead birds were found beneath control towers that used only flashing lights, as opposed to those using both flashing and continuous lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F470https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F470Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:31:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lights low in spectral red to reduce mortality from artificial lightsTwo studies from the North Sea and the Netherlands found that fewer birds were attracted to low-red lights (including green and blue lights), compared with the number expected, or the number attracted to white or red lights. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F471https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F471Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:40:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use volunteers to collect downed birds and rehabilitate them We found no evidence that report on the effectiveness of using volunteers to collect and rehabilitate downed birds. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F472Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:42:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowlA small controlled in Australia found that two malleefowl Leipoa ocellata nests were abandoned after they dried out, despite being watered, although unwatered nests were abandoned much earlier. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F473Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:48:28 +0100