Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Distribute poison bait for predator control using dispensersA controlled study in New Zealand found that survival of South Island robins Petroica australis australis was higher when brodifacoum was dispensed from bait feeders compared to where bait was scattered.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F157Tue, 15 May 2012 12:37:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Legally protect habitats Four studies (two replicated) from Europe found population increases following habitat protection, more positive population trends in protected habitats, compared with outside, or with increases amounts of protected habitats. A literature review reported that a large number of cranes (Gruidae) of seven species used nature reserves in China, whilst a replicated, randomised and controlled study from Argentina found that some guilds of birds were found at higher species richnesses in protected forests, some at higher densities, and that some showed no differences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F158Tue, 15 May 2012 13:48:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use repellents on baits for predator control A replicated, randomised and controlled experiment in the USA found that methyl anthanilate and aminoacetophenone did not reduce consumption of baits by American kestrels Falco sparverius. A replicated, randomised and controlled experiment in New Zealand found that treating baits with pulegone or Avex™ reduced pecking rates in North Island robins Petroica australis longipes. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F159https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F159Tue, 15 May 2012 13:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure connectivity between habitat patches A replicated, controlled study in Canada found significantly higher abundances of some birds, but not forest specialists, in forest patches connected to a continuous area of forest, than in isolated patches. Another study of the same system found evidence that corridors were used by some bird species more than clearcuts between patches, although corridors near cut forest were not used more than those near uncut stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F160Tue, 15 May 2012 14:47:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain un-harvested buffer strips Four replicated studies from Canada and the USA found that wider buffer strips retained a bird community more similar to that of uncut forest than narrower strips. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that several forest-specialist species were absent from buffers up to 70 m wide. Two replicated and controlled studies from the USA found that richness was higher in buffers <100 m wide, compared to wider strips or forest. A replicated, controlled study in the USA (6) found that thinned buffer strips had lower abundances of forest species than unthinned strips, but higher abundances of early successional species. A replicated study from the USA (4) found that species richness was similar between 20–50 m buffers and original forest. A replicated study from the USA found that bird abundances were higher in 20–50 m wide buffer strips than in original forest. A replicated study in the USA found no differences in productivity of birds nests between buffer strips wider than 350 m, compared to those thinner than 250 m. Whilst a replicated, controlled study from the USA found that predation of artificial nests was significantly higher in buffer strips compared with continuous forest, but that there was no diffrerence between narrow and wide buffers. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F161Tue, 15 May 2012 14:59:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public informationA review of programmes in the USA and Canada argues that education was not sufficient to change behaviour, although it was necessary as a catalytic factor for economic incentives and law enforcement.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162Sat, 19 May 2012 19:59:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide bird feeding materials to families with young childrenA single replicated before-and-after study from the USA found that most children involved in a programme providing families with bird food increased their knowledge of birds, but there was no significant change in environmental attitudes.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F163Sat, 19 May 2012 20:07:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enhance bird taxonomy skills through higher education and training We found no evidence for the effects of enhancing bird taxonomy skills 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%2F164https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F164Sat, 19 May 2012 20:10:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to conservationists and land managers on bird ecology and conservation We captured no published evidence on the effects of general awareness campaigns and public information on the state of 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%2F165https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F165Sat, 19 May 2012 20:12:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Angle windows to reduce collisions by birdsA single randomised, replicated and controlled experiment in the USA found fewer birds collided with windows angled away from the vertical.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F166https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F166Sat, 19 May 2012 20:14:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Mark or tint windows to reduce collision mortality Two randomised, replicated and controlled studies (one ex situ) found that marking windows did not appear to reduce bird collisions. However, when windows were largely covered with white cloth, fewer birds flew towards them. A randomised, replicated and controlled study found that fewer birds collided with tinted windows than with un-tinted ones, although the authors noted that the poor reflective quality of the glass could have influenced the results. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F167https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F167Sat, 19 May 2012 20:22:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Support or maintain low-intensity agricultural systems We captured no evidence for the effects of supporting low-intensity agricultural systems 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%2F168https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F168Sun, 20 May 2012 13:05:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Practice integrated farm management We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of practicing integrated farm management 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%2F169https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F169Sun, 20 May 2012 13:06:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming We captured no evidence for the effects of food labelling schemes 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%2F170https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F170Sun, 20 May 2012 13:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of natural/semi-natural vegetation in the farmed landscape Of four studies captured, one, a replicated and controlled paired sites study from Australia, found that farms with plantings of native vegetation held more species than those without. The effect was smaller than that explained by variation in the amount of natural habitat remaining on farms. A replicated study from Switzerland found more species in areas under the Ecological Compensation Area scheme than areas not under it. A before-and-after study from Switzerland found that the populations of three bird species increased after an increase in the amount of land under the Ecological Compensation Scheme. This study found that three species were more found more than expected on Ecological Compensation Scheme land. Another replicated study from Switzerland found that some habitats held more birds if they were close to ECA habitat but that the amount of Ecological Compensation Scheme in an area had no impact on population densities. A small study from the UK found no effect of habitat creation on grey partridge populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F171Sun, 20 May 2012 13:21:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of bird conservation measures Three reviews from the UK of three studies captured reported population increases of three species after the introduction of specially-designed agri-environment schemes. These species were cirl buntings, corncrakes and Eurasian thick-knees. One of these found that many other species continued to decline. Twenty-two of 25 studies all from Europe, including a systematic review, examining local population levels or densities found that at least some birds studied were at higher densities, had higher population levels or more positive population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared to non-agri-environment scheme sites. Some studies found that differences were present in all seasons, others in either summer or winter. Fifteen studies from Europe, including a systematic review, found that some or all species were not found at higher densities, had similar or lower population levels, showed similar population trends on sites with agri-environment schemes, compared with non-agri-environment scheme sites, or showed negative population trends. A study from the Netherlands found that many agri-environment scheme farms were sited in areas where they were unlikely to be effective. One small study from the UK found no differences between winter densities of seed-eating birds on UK Higher Levels Stewardship sites, compared with those under Entry Level Stewardship. A replicated study from the UK found that grey partridge survival was higher on agri-environment scheme sites than non-scheme sites. This difference was not significant every year. Two of three studies investigating reproductive productivity, including one replicated study, found that productivity was higher on farms under agri-environment schemes. One replicated study from the UK found no effect of agri-environment schemes on productivity. A review (Vickery et al. 2010) found that the amount of land entering an agri-environment scheme was on target, but that some options were not being used at high enough rates to help many species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F172Sun, 20 May 2012 14:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cross compliance standards for all subsidy paymentsApart from the Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas scheme (considered in another section), we found no studies comparing the effects of cross compliance standards with other means of implementing agri-environmental measures, or that considered the effects of cross compliance by monitoring farmland bird populations before and after it was implemented.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F173Sun, 27 May 2012 14:49:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce field size (or maintain small fields) We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of reducing field sizes 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%2F174https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F174Sun, 27 May 2012 14:51:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas in farmland Three replicated studies and a review of five studies from Europe and North America examining species richness or diversity found that more species were found on set-aside than on crops. One found fewer species on set-aside than other agricultural habitats. All 21 studies, including a systematic review, 12 replicated experiments and two reviews, from Europe and North America that investigated population trends or habitat associations found that some species were found at higher densities or used set-aside more than other habitats, or were found on set-aside. Four studies (three replicated) from the UK found that some species were found at lower densities on set-aside compared to other habitats. Three of four replicated studies from the UK found that waders and Eurasian skylarks had higher productivities on set-aside, compared to other habitats. One study found that skylarks nesting on set-aside had lower productivity compared to those on cereal crops, and similar productivities to those on other crops. One replicated paired study from the UK found that rotational set-aside was used more than non-rotational set-aside, a replicated paired study found no differences between rotational and non-rotational set-aside. A review from Europe and North America found that naturally regenerated set-aside held more birds and more species than sown set-aside. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F175Sun, 27 May 2012 15:10:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage hedges to benefit birds The one study of six that investigated species richness found no difference in species richness between a UK site with wildlife-friendly hedge management and three control sites. Seven studies from the UK and Switzerland, five replicated, found that some species studied increased in relation to managed hedges or were more likely to be found in managed hedges, compared to other habitats. Two investigated several interventions at once. One replicated study found that species that showed positive responses to hedge management in some regions showed weak or negative responses in other parts of the UK. Four studies from the UK found that some species declined or showed no response to wildlife-friendly management of hedges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F177Wed, 30 May 2012 13:46:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new hedgesA small study from the USA found that the population of northern bobwhites increased following several interventions including the planting of new hedges.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F178Wed, 30 May 2012 14:09:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage stone-faced hedge banks to benefit birds We found no evidence for the effects of managing stone-faced hedge banks 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%2F179https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F179Wed, 30 May 2012 14:13:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage ditches to benefit wildlife Three out of four replicated studies from the UK found that some farmland birds responded positively to the presence of ditches managed for wildlife. All three also found that some species did not respond positively or responded negatively to management. A replicated, controlled and paired sites study from the UK found that bunded ditches were visited by more birds than non-bunded ditches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F180Wed, 30 May 2012 14:17:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use coloured baits to reduce accidental mortality during predator control Two replicated and controlled trials in the USA found that dyed baits were consumed at significantly lower rates than control baits. A replicated, randomised and controlled trial in Australia found no differences in consumption rates of dyed and control baits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F182https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F182Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:40:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Physically protect nests from predators using non-electric fencing Two studies from the USA and UK found that fewer nests were predated or failed when predator exclusion fences were erected. Two studies from the USA found that nesting success or fledging success did not differ between areas with fences erected and those without fences; although one found that hatching rates were higher with fences. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F183Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:15:36 +0100