Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic rather than mineral fertilizers Seventeen studies (including three reviews) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK looked at the effects of using organic rather than mineral fertilizers. Fourteen studies (including two reviews and seven replicated and controlled studies, of which four also randomized) from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the UK found that areas treated with organic rather than mineral fertilizers supported higher plant diversity and cover or species richness, increased earthworm abundance or diversity, biomass and density and increased abundance and/or species richness of some or all invertebrates investigated. A literature review found organic fertilizers without pesticides produced highest earthworm biomass. A small trial in Belgium found more predatory beetles on an arable field two years after organic fertilizer application than on a control plot. One randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the UK found that using organic rather than mineral fertilizers did not affect the abundance of three weed species. A replicated study from Ireland found that the application of farmyard manure had no long-term effect on invertebrates, whilst two studies from the UK found the increase in arthropod predators and springtails was only seen at a local not a field scale. A review found one study from the UK reporting that heavy applications of slurry can be toxic to common earthworms. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F134Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:20:02 +0000Collected 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 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 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 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 pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach threshold levelsNatural enemies: One randomised, replicated, controlled study from Finland found that threshold-based spraying regimes increased numbers of natural enemies in two of three years but effects lasted for as little as three weeks. Pests and disease: Two of four studies from France, Malaysia and the USA reported that pests were satisfactorily controlled. One randomised, replicated, controlled study found pest numbers were similar under threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes and one study reported that pest control was inadequate. A randomised, replicated, controlled study found mixed effects on disease severity. Crop damage: Four of five randomised, replicated, controlled studies from New Zealand, the Philippines and the USA found similar crop damage under threshold-based and conventional, preventative spraying regimes, but one study found damage increased. Another study found slightly less crop damage compared to unsprayed controls. Yield: Two of four randomised, replicated, controlled studies found similar yields under threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes. Two studies found mixed effects depending on site, year, pest stage/type or control treatment. Profit: Two of three randomised, replicated, controlled studies found similar profits using threshold-based and conventional spraying regimes. One study found effects varied between sites and years. Costs: Nine studies found fewer pesticide applications were needed and three studies found or predicted lower production costs. Crops studied were barley, broccoli, cabbages, cauliflower, celery, cocoa, cotton, grape, peanut, potato, rice, tomato and wheat.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F750https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F750Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:05:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention instead of clearcutting We found no evidence for the effect of retaining patches of trees rather than clearcutting on amphibian populations. One replicated study in Canada found that although released red-legged frogs did not show significant movement towards retained tree patches, large patches were selected more and moved out of less than small patches. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F847Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:30:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic farming instead of conventional farming Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using organic farming instead of conventional farming on bat populations. Eight studies were in Europe, two in the USA, one in Canada and one in Chile. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that the composition of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. Richness/diversity (7 studies): Five of seven replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that the number of bat species did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other two studies found more bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Abundance (12 studies): Five of nine replicated, paired sites or site comparison studies in Europe, the USA, Canada and Chile found that overall bat activity (relative abundance) and common pipistrelle activity did not differ between organic and non-organic farms. The other four studies found higher overall bat activity, bat feeding activity, Brazilian free-tailed bat activity, and activity of four of seven bat species on organic farms than non-organic farms. Two replicated, paired sites and site comparison studies in the UK found higher activity of Myotis species over water and rivers on organic farms than non-organic farms, but no differences were found for other species or habitats. One replicated, site comparison study in France found higher activity for two of three bat species over organic fields than two of three types of conventionally managed fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F961Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:21:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of prescribed burning on bat populations. Thirteen studies were in the USA and two were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one before-and-after with paired sites, one site comparison) in Australia found that the composition of bat species differed between burned and unburned woodland sites. The other study found that the composition of bat species was similar between unlogged forest blocks burned every two or four years and unburned blocks. Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in Australia found more bat species in unlogged forest blocks burned every four years than in blocks burned every two years or unburned blocks. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that the activity (relative abundance) of open habitat bat species and evening bats increased with the number of prescribed fires, but there was no effect on other bat species, including cluttered habitat bat species. Four replicated, before-and-after or site comparison studies (including two controlled studies) in the USA and Australia found that prescribed burning, prescribed burning along with thinning or prescribed burning every four years resulted in higher overall bat activity or activity of Florida bonneted bats. One site comparison study in the USA found that two of seven sites that had been burned alongside other restoration practices had higher bat activity than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that three of four burning and thinning treatments resulted in higher overall bat activity. One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in the USA found similar activity of three bat species in burned and unburned tree stands. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): One replicated, controlled before-and-after study in the USA found that more female northern myotis bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found that fewer female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats roosted in burned than unburned forest. One replicated study in the USA found that evening bats roosted in burned but not unburned forest. One replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that burned sites had a higher occupancy of five bat species/species groups than unburned sites, and burn severity had a negative effect on the occupancy of two bat species/species groups. Behaviour change (4 studies): Two replicated, controlled, site comparison studies in the USA found no difference in roost switching frequency or the distance between roost trees for female northern myotis bats and male Indiana bats in burned and unburned forests. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that female northern myotis home ranges and core areas did not differ in size between burned and unburned forests, but home ranges were closer to burned forest than unburned forest. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that home ranges of female Rafinesque’s big-eared bats were located similar distances to burned and unburned forest, and male home ranges were closer to unburned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1006Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pioneer plants or crops as nurse plants We found no evidence for the effect of using pioneer plants or crops on planted trees. '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%2F1163https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1163Wed, 18 May 2016 15:47:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies (including one replicated, randomized, controlled study) in Canada found that using partial retention harvesting instead of clearcutting decreased the density of young trees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1215Fri, 20 May 2016 13:59:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use of unpalatable buffer crops We found no evidence for the effects of using unpalatable buffer crops to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1438Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:26:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:29:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using organic pest control instead of synthetic pesticides on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2014Wed, 05 Dec 2018 17:40:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use other bioremediation methods in aquaculture We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using other bioremediation methods in aquaculture on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2197https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2197Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:09:12 +0100Collected 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 pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2428Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:34:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2503https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2503Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:47:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using predator scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including two before-and-after studies), in the USA, found that coyote scent reduced food consumption by mountain beavers and white-tailed deer. The third study found that it did not reduce trail use by white-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2505Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:01:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. Two studies were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled, before-and-after studies and a replicated, site comparison study in Canada and Australia found that retaining patches of unharvested trees instead of clearcutting whole forest stands increased or maintained numbers of some but not all small mammals. Higher abundances where tree patches were retained were found for southern red-backed voles, bush rat and for female agile antechinus. No benefit of retaining forest patches was found on abundances of deer mouse, meadow vole and male agile antechinus. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2639Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:25:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use onboard CCTV for monitoring catches and discards We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using onboard CCTV monitoring on marine fish populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2767Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:05:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using passive listening devices to detect mammals and prompt fishing vessels to move away on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2791https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2791Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:30:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3634https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3634Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:49:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use prescribed burning in combination with grazing Five studies evaluated the effects of using prescribed burning in combination with grazing on reptile populations. Two studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One of two studies (including one site comparison study and one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in Argentina and the USA found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had similar reptile species richness and diversity compared to areas not burned or grazed for 3–12 years. The other study found that areas that were burned in combination with grazing had higher species richness than lightly grazed or unmanaged areas and similar richness compared to areas that were burned only. One before-and-after study in the USA found that an area with annual prescribed burning combined with intensive early-season grazing had similar reptile species richness compared to when it was managed by alternate year prescribed burning with season-long grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Australia and Argentina found that that burning in combination with grazing had mixed effects on the abundance of reptile species. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that areas where invasive para grass was removed by burning in combination with grazing had similar overall reptile and amphibian abundance compared to areas that were only burned or unmanaged. The study also found that the abundance of delicate skinks was lower in areas that were burned and grazed compared to those that were unmanaged. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3657Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:27:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of using patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3869Mon, 18 Jul 2022 15:45:31 +0100