Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create patches of bare ground for ground-nesting beesOne replicated controlled trial in Germany and four small trials (three replicated, one not) have shown that artificially exposed areas of bare soil can be successfully colonised by ground-nesting solitary bees and wasps in the first or second year. We have captured no evidence for the effect of creating areas of bare ground on bee populations or communities on a larger scale. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F13Thu, 20 May 2010 19:29:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools Three studies from Sweden and the UK (including two site comparisons one of which was replicated) found that the creation of scrapes and pools provided habitat for a range of plant, invertebrate or bird species and resulted in increased aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity. One of these studies found constructed pools supported locally or nationally scarce species of plant and water beetle. A study in Sweden found that a combination of large surface area, high shoreline complexity and shallow depth resulted in increased bird, bottom-dwelling invertebrate and aquatic plant diversity. However there were fewer fish species than in natural wetlands. Two replicated studies from Ireland and the UK (one controlled paired study and a site comparison) found that bird visit rates were higher but invertebrate numbers varied in ditch-fed paired ponds compared with dry controls and total macroinvertebrate and beetle richness did not differ between artificial and natural ponds, although communities did differ. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F153Sat, 14 Jan 2012 15:30:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots for bird conservation A before-and-after study found an increase in Eurasian skylark Alauda arvensis population on a farm after the creation of skylark plots; a replicated, controlled study from the UK found higher densities of skylarks on fields with plots, compared to those without. No other studies investigated population-level effects. Two UK studies, one replicated and controlled, found that skylark productivity was higher in plots or in fields with plots than in controls. One replicated and controlled study from Switzerland found no differences in productivity between territories that included plots and those that did not. Two replicated studies (one controlled) from Denmark and Switzerland found that skylark plots were used by skylarks more than expected. A replicated and controlled study from the UK found that seed-eating songbirds did not use skylark plots more than surrounding crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F214https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F214Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:43:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools in wetlands and wet grasslands Of six studies captured, four before-and after studies from the UK and North America found that the use of sites, or the breeding population of birds on sites, increased following the creation of ponds and scrapes or was higher in areas with ditch-fed ponds. A study from the USA found that dabbling ducks used newly-created ponds in large numbers, although other species preferred older ponds. Songbirds did not appear to be affected by pond-creation. A replicated site from the UK found that northern lapwing chicks foraged in newly created wet features and that chick condition was higher in sites with a large number of footdrains. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F359Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:26:31 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create skylark plots All four studies from the UK and Switzerland (two replicated and controlled, and one review) investigating the effect of skylark plots on Eurasian skylarks, found a positive effect, reporting increases in skylark population size, breeding density, duration or success or a lower likelihood of skylarks abandoning their territory relative to fields without plots. A replicated study from Denmark found that skylarks used undrilled patches within cereal fields more than expected by an even distribution across the landscape. Four studies reported the effect of undrilled patches on wildlife other than skylarks. Three studies from the UK (including two replicated studies, of which one also controlled and a review) found benefits to plants and invertebrates. Whilst two studies (both replicated, one also controlled) from the UK found no significant differences in the number of some invertebrates or seed-eating songbirds between skylark plots and conventional crop fields. One replicated study from the UK investigated different skylark plot establishment techniques. Plots that were undrilled had greater vegetation cover and height than plots established by spraying out with herbicide. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F540Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:08:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create rotational grass or clover leys A controlled study in Finland found that creating clover leys resulted in higher spider abundance and fewer pest insects than a barley control plot. A study in the UK found that one-year ley plots had significantly lower earthworm species richness and abundance than three-and-a-half-year leys. A replicated study in the UK found that grass leys had fewer plant species than nine other conservation measures. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F643Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuges Two replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the USA and Indonesia found that adding coarse woody debris to forest floors had no effect on the number of amphibian species or overall abundance, but had mixed effects on abundance of individual species. One before-and-after study in Australia found that restoration that included reintroducing coarse woody debris to the forest floor increased frog species. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK found that creating refugia for great crested newts, along with other interventions, maintained four populations. Two studies (including one replicated study) in New Zealand and the USA found that artificial refugia were used by translocated Hamilton's frogs and hellbenders, although few were used for breeding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F772Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:40:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create refuge areas in aquatic habitats We found no evidence for the effects of creating refuge areas in aquatic habitats on amphibian 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%2F813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F813Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:08:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for great crested newts Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies) in Germany and the UK found that naturally colonizing, captive-bred and translocated great crested newts established breeding populations at 57–75% of created ponds or sites. One systematic review in the UK found that there was no conclusive evidence that mitigation, which often included pond creation, resulted in self-sustaining populations. Three replicated, before-and-after studies in the UK found that up to 88% of created ponds were colonized by translocated or by small numbers of naturally colonizing great crested newts. One replicated before-and-after study in the UK found that head-started great crested newts reproduced in 38% of created ponds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F863https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F863Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:57:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for green toads Two before-and-after studies (including one controlled study) in Denmark found that pond creation, along with other interventions, significantly increased green toad populations. One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that green toads used 59% and reproduced in 41% of created ponds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F864https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F864Fri, 06 Sep 2013 16:23:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for frogs Three of five before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Australia, Spain, the UK and USA found that translocated, head-started, captive-bred and naturally colonizing frogs established breeding populations in created ponds. Two found that breeding populations were established at one of four sites by translocated frogs, but were not established by captive-bred frogs. One replicated, before-and-after study in Denmark found that frogs colonized created ponds. One before-and-after study in the Netherlands found that pond creation, along with vegetation clearance, increased a breeding population of European tree frogs. An additional three of four replicated, before-and-after studies in Italy, the UK and USA found that naturally colonizing frog species reproduced in 50–75% of created ponds. Two found that translocated frog species reproduced in only 31% of created ponds, or colonized but did not reproduce successfully. One replicated study in the USA found that survival of translocated Oregon spotted frogs increased with increasing age of created ponds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F865https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F865Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:47:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for natterjack toads Five before-and-after studies (including three replicated and one controlled study) in the UK and Denmark found that pond creation, along with other interventions, significantly increased natterjack toad populations, or in two cases maintained or increased populations at 75% of sites. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that compared to natural ponds, created ponds had lower natterjack toad tadpole mortality from desiccation, but higher mortality from predation by invertebrates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F866Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:47:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for salamanders (including newts) Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies) in France, Germany and the USA found that naturally colonizing alpine newts, captive-bred smooth newts or translocated spotted salamanders established stable breeding populations in 20–100% of created ponds. Two replicated, before-and-after study in France and China found that alpine newts or Chinhai salamanders reproduced in 60–100% of created ponds. One small, replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that translocated spotted salamanders but not tiger salamanders reproduced in created ponds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F867https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F867Tue, 10 Sep 2013 15:55:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for toads Four before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Germany, the UK and USA found that translocated and naturally colonizing toads established breeding populations in created ponds, or in one case 33% of created ponds. Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Denmark and Switzerland found that common toads and midwife toads naturally colonized 29–100% of created ponds, whereas captive-bred garlic toads did not colonize. One before-and-after study in Denmark found that creating and restoring ponds, along with head-starting, increased populations of European fire-bellied toads. One replicated, before-and-after study in Switzerland found that midwife toads reproduced in 16% of created ponds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F868https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F868Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:55:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create ponds for amphibians Twenty-eight studies investigated the colonization of created ponds by amphibians in general (rather than by targeted species, which are discussed below). All of the studies found that amphibians used some or all created ponds. Nine site comparison studies (including seven replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Spain, the UK and USA compared amphibian numbers in created and natural ponds. Five found that numbers of species or breeding species were similar or higher in created ponds, and numbers of ponds colonized were similar. Four found that species composition differed, and comparisons between abundance of individual species, juvenile productivity and size at metamorphosis differed depending on species. One found that numbers of species were similar or lower depending on the permanence of created water bodies. One found that populations in created ponds were less stable. One review and two replicated, before-and-after studies in Denmark and the USA found that amphibians established stable populations in 50–100% of created ponds. Six replicated studies (including one randomized study) in France, the Netherlands, UK and USA found that amphibians used 64–100% and reproduced in 64–68% of created ponds, or used 8–100% and reproduced in 2–62% depending on species. One review and 15 studies (including 12 replicated studies, one of which was randomized) in Europe and the USA found that created ponds were used or colonized by up to 15 naturally colonizing species, up to 10 species that reproduced, as well as by captive-bred amphibians. Five replicated studies (including three site comparison studies) in Denmark, Estonia, France, Italy and the USA found that pond creation, and restoration in three cases, maintained and increased amphibian populations or increased numbers of species. Seven studies (including one review) in Austria, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands and USA found that use or colonization of or reproductive success in created ponds was affected by pond age, permanence, vegetation cover, surrounding landscape, distance to existing ponds and presence of fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F869Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:16:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures Three studies examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Two studies were in an estuary in southeast Australia and one was in marinas in northwest France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Invertebrate community composition (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies (including one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate community composition, depending on the density or length of flexible habitats and/or the site. One of the studies found it altered the non-mobile invertebrate community composition. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired sites, controlled study in France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures did not increase the mobile or non-mobile invertebrate species richness on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Invertebrate abundance (3 studies): Three randomized, controlled studies (including two replicated and one paired sites study) in Australia and France found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile and/or non-mobile invertebrate abundance on and around structure surfaces, depending on the survey week, species group, flexible habitat length, or site. One of the studies found no effect on mobile invertebrate abundance. Fish abundance (1 study): One randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on subtidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the seahorse abundance on and around structures, depending on the survey week. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3450Wed, 08 Sep 2021 15:19:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on subtidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating pit habitats on subtidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was on an open coastline in northern Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that pit habitats created on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. They also supported mobile and non-mobile invertebrate and fish species that were absent from a similar structure without the added habitat features. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel found that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species diversity on structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on macroalgal abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on invertebrate abundances on structure surfaces, depending on the species group. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Israel reported that creating pit habitats on a subtidal artificial structure, along with holes, grooves and environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects on fish abundances on and around structure surfaces, depending on the species group. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3455Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:31:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create short flexible habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures One study examined the effects of creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. The study was in an estuary in southeast Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and non-mobile invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces, and had mixed effects on the combined mobile invertebrate and fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during low tide, depending on the site. Invertebrate community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the mobile invertebrate community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not alter the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces during high tide. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures decreased the combined macroalgae, invertebrate and fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Invertebrate richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the mobile invertebrate species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide, depending on the site. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces during high tide. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined mobile invertebrate and fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during low tide. Algal abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces, depending on the species group and site. Invertebrate abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures had mixed effects on the abundance of non-mobile invertebrates on structure surfaces, and of mobile invertebrates during high tide, depending on the species group and site. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces during high tide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that creating short flexible habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the number of bites fishes took of structure surfaces.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3459Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:23:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create pit habitats (1–50 mm) on intertidal artificial structures Twenty-two studies examined the effects of creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures on the biodiversity of those structures. Ten studies were on open coastlines in the UK, the Netherlands and the Azores, six were on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait, three were in estuaries in southeast Australia and the UK, one was in a port in the Netherlands, one was in an estuary and on an open coastline in the UK, and one was on island coastlines in the Singapore Strait and in estuaries in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Overall community composition (9 studies): Four of six replicated, controlled studies (including four randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Australia, Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures altered the combined macroalgae and invertebrate community composition on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits did not alter the community composition. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects depending on the size and arrangement of pits and other habitats and the site, while one found that varying the pit size and arrangement had no significant effect. Three of these studies, along with three other replicated, controlled studies (including one that was randomized) in the UK and Singapore, reported that pit habitats, along with grooves and ridges in one, supported macroalgae, invertebrate and/or fish species that were absent from structure surfaces without added habitats. Fish community composition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that pit habitats created on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, altered the fish community composition on and around structure surfaces, and supported species that were absent from surfaces without pits and grooves. Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Eight of 12 replicated controlled studies (including six randomized and two before-and-after studies) in the UK and Singapore found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves, or grooves, small protrusions and ridges in two studies, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate species richness and/or diversity on structure surfaces. Two studies found that creating pits did not increase the species richness, while two found that creating pits, along with grooves or using environmentally-sensitive material, had mixed effects depending on the site. One of the studies found that varying the pit size and arrangement resulted in higher species richness, while one found that this had mixed effects depending on the shore level. Two of the studies found that varying the pit size did not affect species richness. One of them found that increasing the density and fragmentation of pits, along with grooves, had mixed effects on species richness. Algal richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves and small ridges, increased the macroalgal species richness on structure surfaces. Invertebrate richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in Australia and the Azores reported that creating pits on an intertidal artificial structure increased the limpet and periwinkle species richness on structure surfaces, and that their richness and diversity varied depending on the pit arrangement. One found that creating pits did not affect the limpet species richness, regardless of the pit size. Fish richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish species richness on and around structure surfaces. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Overall abundance (5 studies): Two of five replicated, controlled studies (including three randomized and two before-and-after studies) in Singapore and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves in one study, increased the combined macroalgae and invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits decreased their abundance and one found no effect. One found that creating pits, along with grooves, small protrusions and ridges, had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement, shore level and site. Algal abundance (4 studies): Three of four replicated, controlled studies (including two randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Netherlands, Singapore and the Azores found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures, along with grooves and small ridges in one study, did not increase the macroalgal abundance on structure surfaces. One study found that creating pits had mixed effects on abundance depending on the pit size and arrangement and the site. Invertebrate abundance (9 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled studies (including six randomized and two paired sites studies) in the Azores, the Netherlands, Australia and the UK found that creating pit habitats on intertidal artificial structures did not increase the combined invertebrate or mobile invertebrate abundance on structure surfaces. Three studies found that creating pits, along with grooves in one study, had mixed effects on barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances, depending on the site, the species, the size of animals, and/or the pit size and arrangement. Two studies found that creating pits, along with using environmentally-sensitive material in one, increased barnacle and/or mobile invertebrate abundances. Two of the studies found that the pit size or arrangement did not affect abundances, while two found that the effects of pit size and arrangement varied depending on the site and species. One replicated randomized study in the UK found that increasing pit density increased periwinkle abundance, but pit arrangement did not. Fish abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the fish abundance on and around structure surfaces. BEHAVIOUR (6 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the Azores reported that occupancy of pit habitats created on intertidal artificial structures by limpets and/or periwinkles varied depending on the pit size and arrangement, the size of animals, the species and/or site. Three replicated studies (including two paired sites, controlled studies) in the Netherlands and in Singapore and the UK reported that pit habitats were used by periwinkles, macroalgae and invertebrates. Fish behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Singapore found that creating pit habitats on an intertidal artificial structure, along with grooves, increased the number of bites fishes took from structure surfaces. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3475Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:58:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore savannas One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring savannas on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Australia found that reptile species richness was higher following restoration of savanna-like habitat on a golf course. POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3739Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:15:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore shrubland One study evaluated the effects of creating or restoring shrubland on reptile populations. This study was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had similar reptile and amphibian species richness compared to areas that were not restored. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that areas of restored shrubland had a higher abundance of lizards than areas that were not restored. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3751Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:28:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore waterways Two studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring waterways on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Community composition (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that restored and pristine streams had similar turtle community composition. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found that restored and pristine streams had a similar abundance of turtles. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that creating new waterways by redirecting flows during forest restoration had mixed effects of reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3754https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3754Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:37:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or restore wetlands Seven studies evaluated the effects of creating or restoring wetlands on reptile populations. Six studies were in the USA and one was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): One before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that reptile species richness and diversity tended to be lower in a restored wetland compared to an undisturbed wetland. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that created, restored, enhanced and natural wetlands had similar combined reptile and amphibian species richness. One site comparison study in the USA found that created wetlands and adjacent natural forest had similar reptile species richness and diversity. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): One site comparison study in the USA found that a created wetland was used by snapping turtles for egg laying. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA found that in a restored wetland, 16 snake, six lizard and eight turtle species successfully reproduced. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One site comparison study and three before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in the USA and Kenya found that created or restored wetlands were used by black rat snakes and snapping turtles, turtles, lizards, green grass snakes and terrapins, six or 18 reptile species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3755https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3755Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:41:45 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create or retain deadwood in forest management One study evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating or retaining deadwood in forest management. This study was in Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that sites where deadwood had been left for many years had a higher abundance of Scardia boletella moths than conventionally managed sites in one of two regions, but the occurrence of Archinemapogon yildizae moths was similar across all sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3873Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:00:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create scrapes and pools We found no studies that evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of creating scrapes and pools. ‘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%2F3951https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3951Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:22:19 +0100