Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mowing techniques to reduce chick mortality A review from the UK found a large increase in corncrake Crex crex populations in the UK following a scheme to delay mowing and promote corncrake-friendly mowing techniques. One replicated controlled study from the UK and a review from the UK found lower levels of mortality of corncrakes and Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis when wildlife-friendly mowing techniques were used, compared to other techniques.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F192https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F192Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:30:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mixed stocking We found no evidence on the effects of mixed stocking 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%2F232https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F232Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:51:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use netting to exclude fish-eating birds Two replicated studies from Germany and the USA found that netting or closely-spaced string barriers reduced losses of fish or deterred fish-eating birds from fish ponds. A review concluded that excluding birds was an effective way to reduce damage. A series of tests in the Netherlands found that netting or nylon lines over ponds did not prevent birds from landing, but did alter behaviour, whilst a before-and-after study from the USA found that fewer great blue herons Ardea Herodias landed at fish ponds with netting, but that they stayed longer. Two replicated studies from Germany and Israel found that some birds became entangled in netting or closely-spaced string barriers over fish ponds. The Israeli study found that dark, small meshed netting entangled fewer birds than other netting types.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F248Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:00:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use in-water devices to reduce fish loss from ponds A before-and-after study from the USA found a 95% reduction in the number of double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus at two ponds in a fish farm following the installation of underwater ropes. A replicated study at a fish farm in Australia found that hanging gill nets in ponds did not decrease the number of cormorants swimming in ponds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F254https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F254Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:54:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use perch-deterrents to stop raptors perching on pylonsA single controlled study from the USA found significantly lower raptor activity close to perch-deterrent power lines, compared to control lines. No data were provided on electrocution rates.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F269Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:21:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations Six out of seven before-and-after studies and two literature reviews/meta-analyses found evidence that legislation protects bird populations. Five studies in Europe, Indonesia and across the world found increased population levels of vultures, raptors, cranes and cockatoos following protective legislation (amongst other interventions). However, one found populations of raptors declined soon after. The literature review also found two cases of limited or no impact of legislation. Two before-and-after studies from Denmark and the USA and Canada and the meta-analysis found increased estimated survival of falcons, ducks and parrots with stricter protection, but not necessarily population-level responses. A meta-analysis found decreased harvest of parrots in areas with stricter protection regimes, but a before-and-after study found no evidence for reduced shearwater harvest with legislation.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F271https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F271Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:57:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use larger hooks to reduce seabird bycatch We captured no intervention-based evidence on the impact of large hooks on seabird bycatch. '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%2F286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F286Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:26:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use high-visibility longlines to reduce seabird bycatch We captured no intervention-based evidence on the impact on seabird bycatch of high-visibility longlines. '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%2F294https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F294Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:58:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use high-visibility mesh on gillnets to reduce seabird bycatch A repeated, randomised and controlled trial in the USA found that having gillnets made partially from high-visibility mesh was effective in reducing seabird bycatch. Having a greater percentage (25% vs. 10%) of the net made from high-visibility mesh was more effective, but also reduced catch of the target species.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F303https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F303Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:10:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use nest covers to reduce the impact of research on predation of ground-nesting seabirdsA before-and-after study in Canada found that protecting Caspian tern Sterna caspia nests after researchers disturbed parents from them significantly increased hatching success. This was due to a reduction in predation by ring-billed gulls Larus delawarensis.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F316https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F316Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:26:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on Australian sclerophyll forest Two of three studies from Australia found no differences in bird species richness in burned sites compared to unburned areas. Three studies found differences in species assemblages in burned and unburned areas, with some species lost and others gained from areas after fire.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F319Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:44:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning on coastal habitats Of three studies captured, one replicated, controlled, paired sites study from the USA found that there was a fall in breeding seaside sparrow numbers on a burned site in the year it was burned. The next year, numbers were higher than on an unburned site. A controlled study in Argentina found that tall-grass specialist species were lost from burned areas in the year of burning, but that some habitats recovered by the following year. A replicated controlled study from the USA found no differences in nest predation rates between burned and unburned areas for two years after burning.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F323Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:24:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting One before-and-after study of two from the USA found that areas under patch retention harvesting contained more birds of more species than clearcut areas, retaining similar numbers to unharvested areas. Two studies from the USA found that forest specialist species were found with greater frequency in patch retention plots than other management types. One found that habitat generalists increased on other management types, relative to patch retention areas.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F330Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:02:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use greentree reservoir managementA site comparison study from the USA found significantly lower numbers of breeding mid- and under-storey birds at a greentree reservoir site than at a control site. Canopy nesting species were not affected. The species investigated were not gamebirds or wildfowl.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F357Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:02:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use multiple barriers to protect nests A replicated, controlled study from the USA found no evidence that erecting an electric fence around nests protected by individual barriers increased fledging success in piping plovers Charadrius melodus. A replicated study from the USA found that removing the outer of two nest protection fences after 15 days appeared to reduce predation compared to when both fences were left for 18 days.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F404https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F404Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:00:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mirrors to deter nest predators We found no evidence for the effects of mirrors on nest predation rates. '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%2F407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F407Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:09:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use naphthalene to deter mammalian predatorsA replicated, controlled study from the USA found that scattering naphthalene moth balls near artificial nests did not affect predation rates.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F408Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:11:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lion dung to deter domestic cats We found no evidence for the effects of lion dung application on the use of gardens by cats or on cat predation. '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%2F413https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F413Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:19:11 +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: 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: 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 perches to increase foraging success Two studies from the USA found that raptors and other birds used perches provided, whilst a replicated and controlled study in Sweden found that raptors used clearcuts with perches significantly more than those without. However, a controlled study from the USA found that overall bird abundances were not higher in areas provided with perches and a small controlled cross-over trial on an island in the USA found that San Clemente loggerhead shrikes Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi did not alter their hunting patterns or increase their success rates following the installation of perches in their territories.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F556Sun, 23 Sep 2012 15:05:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release sites Three replicated and one small study from three release programmes in Saudi Arabia, the USA and Canada found that released birds had higher survival or were more likely to pair up if kept at release sites in holding pens before release. A replicated study in the USA found lower survival for thick-billed parrots Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha released in holding pens, compared to birds released without preparation. A review of northern bald ibis Geronticus eremita conservation found that holding pens successfully prevented most birds from migrating (which resulted in 100% mortality), although some 200 birds ‘escaped’ over 25 years.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F632https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F632Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:22:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use microlites to help birds migrateA review of northern bald ibis Geronticus eremita conservation found that a group of birds followed a microlite from Austria to Italy but none made the return journey.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F640https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F640Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:58:53 +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