Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining in-field elements such as field islands and rockpiles, on farmland wildlife. '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%2F77https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F77Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:09:32 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain rush pastures We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining rush pastures on farmland wildlife. '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%2F91https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F91Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:34:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional farm buildings We have captured no evidence for the effects of maintaining traditional farm buildings on farmland wildlife. '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%2F94https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F94Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:37:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland A before-and-after study from the UK found five species of conservation concern increased after the implementation of management designed to maintain unimproved grasslands. A replicated study from Switzerland found that wetland birds appeared to preferentially choose managed hay meadows; birds of open farmland avoided it.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F218https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F218Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:27:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain lowland heathland We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of maintaining lowland heath 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%2F226https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F226Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:31:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain rush pastures We found no intervention-based evidence on the effects of maintaining rush pastures 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%2F227https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F227Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:32:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows A replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common redshank populations increased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows. Two replicated studies from the Netherlands found that there were more waders or birds overall on specially managed meadows or 12.5 ha plots including several management interventions than on conventional fields, but one study found that these differences were present before the management scheme was introduced and the other found no differences between individual fields under different management. A replicated study from the UK found that common snipe decreased on nature reserves managed to maintain water meadows and a replicated before-and-after study from the Netherlands found that wader population trends on specially managed meadows were no different to those on conventionally-managed meadows. A replicated study from the UK found that lapwing populations on three of four water meadow sites managed for conservation did not have high enough productivity to maintain population levels. All three sites were judged deficient in at least one management category.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F229Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:37:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain upland heath/moorA literature review from the UK found that agri-environment guidelines on moorland grazing were leading to increased bird populations in one region. There were localised problems with overgrazing, burning and scrub encroachment.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F230https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F230Tue, 17 Jul 2012 15:50:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchardsTwo site comparison studies from the UK and Switzerland found that traditional orchards did not benefit many birds. In Switzerland, one species was associated with orchards; in the UK, the focal species was negatively related to the presence of orchards.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F240https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F240Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:42:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain upland heath/moorland Of 15 individual studies from the UK, eight (including three replicated, controlled trials, of which one also randomized) found that appropriate management can help to maintain the conservation value of upland heath or moorland. Of these eight studies, four tested the effectiveness of excluding or reducing grazing. Impacts included increases in the abundance of Scottish primrose and other broadleaved plant species, heather cover and numbers of true bugs, biomass of arthropods associated with the bird diet, number and diversity of moths and benefits to black grouse. Among other treatments, repeated cutting and grazing by goats were found to be effective in controlling the dominance of certain grass species. A review found management under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme had broadly positive effects on moorland birds and a reduction in grazing benefited most bird species and increased heath vegetation and heather cover. A replicated before-and-after study found that moorland management under the Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme maintained the number of plant species in two out of three areas. Three studies (including one before-and-after trial) reported mixed results for invertebrates or birds, where management to maintain upland heath or moorland benefited some but not all species or where the effect depended on the vegetation type. Treatments tested included reducing grazing intensity and grouse moor management (burning and predator control). Four studies (including one controlled site comparison and two reviews) found that reducing the intensity of livestock grazing reduced the abundance of soil organisms including invertebrates, bacteria or fungi. A randomized, replicated before-and-after study found that heather cover declined over nine years on a moorland site managed under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme in which grazing intensity had increased.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F647Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:51:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional water meadows (includes management for breeding and/or wintering waders/waterfowl) Four studies from Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK (including two site comparisons of which one also replicated) found that maintaining traditional water meadows resulted in an increased population size or number of territories of northern lapwing, common redshank and black-tailed godwit and increased plant species richness. However one of these studies also found common snipe declined on all sites under management to maintain traditional water meadows, and another of the studies found that differences in numbers of birds were present before meadow bird management. Two studies (a replicated study and a review of European studies) found that managing traditional water meadows by grazing had mixed impacts on wildlife and that the productivity of northern lapwings was too low to sustain populations on three of the four water meadows managed for waders. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial in the Netherlands found that cutting in June maintained relatively stable vegetation and a review found mowing could be used to maintain water meadows but had variable effects on plant species richness. One replicated site comparison from the Netherlands found more birds bred on 12.5 ha plots with management for wading birds (in combination with per-clutch payments), however at the field scale there was no difference in bird abundance or species richness between conventionally managed fields and those managed for birds.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F696https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F696Fri, 07 Dec 2012 09:05:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland Of 22 studies (including eleven replicated trials, three reviews and a systematic review) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK, 13 identified management regimes that maintained species-rich grassland. Four of these studies were replicated, controlled trials (including two randomized). Nine studies (including two randomized, replicated before-and-after trials) from Switzerland and the UK examined the effectiveness of existing or historical agri-environment schemes: seven testing the effectiveness of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme in England and two testing the effectiveness of the Ecological Compensation Areas scheme in Switzerland. All except one reported mixed results, with the schemes broadly maintaining plant species richness, but being less effective, for example, in enhancing species richness, preserving the highest quality sites, or overcoming the effects of past intensive management. One study found six Environmentally Sensitive Areas were of ‘outstanding’ significance for their lowland grassland, containing >40% of the English resource of a grassland type. A replicated site comparison study found that on average 86% of Swiss Ecological Compensation Area litter meadows were of ‘good ecological quality’ compared with only 20% of hay meadow Ecological Compensation Areas. Twelve studies (including a systematic review, six replicated trials of which two also controlled and randomized, and three reviews) from the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK tested the effects of management treatments on species richness or vegetation quality usually involving combinations of mowing, grazing or no fertilizer but some also tested the effectiveness of mulching or burning. All of these studies identified management treatments which benefited or maintained species richness or vegetation quality. One site comparison from Finland and northwest Russia found that butterfly species richness, diversity and total abundance did not differ significantly between mown meadows and grazed pastures and that grassland age and origin had a greater impact on butterfly communities than present management. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F702Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:44:12 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchards Two replicated site comparisons from Germany and Switzerland found that, on average, 12% of traditional orchards in Swiss Ecological Compensation Areas were of ‘good ecological quality’, and traditional orchards under a German agri-environment scheme did not have more plant species than paired control sites. Traditional orchards in Ecological Compensation Areas appeared to offer little benefit to birds. A replicated, controlled site comparison study in Germany found that plant species richness was higher on mown orchards than grazed or abandoned ones, but numbers of species and brood cells of bees and wasps did not differ.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F703https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F703Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:17:09 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore hedges We found no evidence for the effects of maintaining or restoring of hedges 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%2F790https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F790Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:33:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain ephemeral ponds Studies investigating the effects of regulating water levels or deepening ponds are discussed in ‘Threat: Natural system modifications – Regulate water levels’ and ‘Habitat restoration and creation – Deepen, de-silt or re-profile ponds’.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F805https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F805Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:02:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain forest and woodland edges for foraging bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining forest and woodland edges for foraging bats 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%2F992https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F992Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:33:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors in areas of energy production or mining on shrublands. '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%2F1610https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1610Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:24:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining habitat corridors over or under roads and other transportation corridors on shrublands. '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%2F1617https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1617Sun, 22 Oct 2017 10:32:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain microclimate in closed/abandoned mines One study evaluated the effects of maintaining the microclimate in an abandoned mine on bat populations. The study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying the microclimate of an abandoned mine by closing a man-made entrance resulted in a greater number of bats hibernating within the mine. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1964Tue, 04 Dec 2018 16:52:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain species-rich, semi-natural grassland Nineteen studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining species-rich, semi-natural grassland. Five studies were in Germany, four were in the USA, two were in each of Switzerland and the Czech Republic, and one was in each of Finland and Russia, China, Italy, Spain, Hungary and Austria. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Community composition (6 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies in the USA, the Czech Republic, Austria and Germany found that the community composition of butterflies, day-flying moths and nocturnal moths was different between summer cattle-grazed, early-mown and late-mown grassland, between mown and grazed grassland, and between prairies managed by cattle grazing and/or rotational burning. However, one of these studies found that the community composition of butterflies was similar in mown and grazed grassland. Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Czech Republic and Germany found that species-rich grassland managed by grazing or mowing had a similar community composition of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned grassland. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that meadows managed by mowing at least twice/year after mid-June had a different community composition of butterflies to sown wildflower strips. Richness/diversity (11 studies): Three of six site comparison studies (including five replicated studies) in Germany, the USA, Russia and Finland, Italy and the Czech Republic found that the species richness of butterflies was similar on semi-natural grassland managed by light grazing or by annual mowing in July or August, and on prairies managed by cattle grazing and/or rotational burning. One study found that the species richness of butterflies was higher in grassland managed by sheep and cattle grazing than in grassland mown annually for hay in June. One study found that the species richness of moths was higher in grassland managed by annual mowing than grassland managed by grazing, and the species richness of butterflies was highest in grasslands where mowing was staggered throughout the year, with some areas left uncut. The sixth study found that in some areas, the species richness of specialist and grassland butterflies was higher in prairies managed by two-year rotational haying, and in other areas it was higher in prairies managed by grazing, but in all cases richness was higher at sites longer after they were last managed. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Germany found that species-rich grasslands managed by summer-grazing, grazing or mowing had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths and nocturnal moths to unmanaged grassland. However, one of these studies also found that grasslands managed by mowing had a lower species richness of nocturnal moths than unmown grassland. Two replicated, site comparison studies in Germany and Hungary found that old meadows mown in July and lightly grazed or annually mown meadows had a higher species richness of adult butterflies and caterpillars than recently established set-aside or cereal crops. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that meadows mown at least twice/year after mid-June had a similar species richness of butterflies to sown wildflower strips. POPULATION RESPONSE (16 STUDIES) Abundance (16 studies): Five of ten site comparison studies (including nine replicated studies) in Germany, the USA, Russia and Finland, Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic found that semi-natural grasslands had a similar abundance of butterflies generally, and individual species of butterflies and moth caterpillars, when managed by extensive sheep, sheep and goat, cattle or livestock grazing compared to annual or occasional mowing, or rotational mowing or burning. Four of these studies found that grasslands managed by cattle, sheep or livestock grazing had a higher abundance of butterflies generally, and individual species of butterflies and moth caterpillars, than grasslands managed by annual mowing, rotational burning or unmanaged grasslands. Three of these studies found that grasslands managed by haying had a higher abundance of individual butterfly species than grasslands managed by grazing or burning or unmanaged grasslands. Four of these studies found that specific butterfly species and all butterflies were less abundant in mown, grazed or rotationally burned grassland than in unmanaged, rotationally burned or grazed and burned grassland. The ninth study found that in some areas, the abundance of specialist and grassland butterflies was higher in prairies managed by two-year rotational haying or by grazing, but in all cases abundance was higher at sites longer after they were last managed. One of three replicated, site comparison studies in Germany and Switzerland found that traditional hay meadows mown once/year in June or July had a higher abundance of heath fritillary adults and caterpillars than old, abandoned meadows. One study found that summer-grazed or mown grasslands had a higher abundance of farmland butterflies and burnet moths, but a lower abundance of woodland butterflies and burnet moths, than abandoned grasslands. The third study found that mown grasslands had a lower abundance of moths than unmown grasslands, but grazed grasslands had a similar abundance of moths to ungrazed grasslands. Two replicated, site comparison studies in China and Switzerland found that semi-natural grasslands managed by grazing or cutting twice/year after mid-June had a lower abundance of marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars and adult butterflies than ungrazed margins and intercrops or sown wildflower strips. One replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that semi-natural grasslands managed by either light grazing or mowing once/year in May or June had a higher abundance of butterflies than conventional wheat fields. Survival (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in China found that marsh fritillary eggs had a similar survival rate in uncultivated, grazed meadows and cultivated, ungrazed field margins and intercrops, but the survival of caterpillars was higher in the grazed meadows. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Austria and Germany found that 14 species of moth preferred grazed pastures while 24 others avoided them, and three species of butterfly and ten nocturnal moths preferred mown meadows, while 19 nocturnal moth species avoided them. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that meadows managed by summer-grazing or hay-mowing were more likely to be occupied by grizzled skipper and painted lady than unmanaged meadows, but small pearl-bordered fritillary occurred less frequently in grazed meadows than in hay meadows or abandoned meadows. One replicated, site comparison study in Finland and Russia found that three of 37 butterfly species preferred meadows which were mown annually in July or August to cattle-grazed pasture, but the other 34 species showed no preference. One replicated, site comparison study in China found that uncultivated, grazed meadows were less likely to be occupied by marsh fritillary eggs and caterpillars than cultivated field margins and intercrops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3908https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3908Wed, 10 Aug 2022 11:31:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain traditional orchards to benefit butterflies and moths Two studies evaluated the effects of maintaining traditional orchards on butterflies and moths. One study was in each of the USA and Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Community composition (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a similar community composition of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned orchards. Richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a similar species richness of butterflies and burnet moths to abandoned orchards. One controlled study in the USA found that an unmanaged and a partially managed orchard had a greater species richness and diversity of leaf-eating arthropods (including caterpillars) than a commercially managed orchard. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that managed orchards had a lower abundance of butterflies and burnet moths than abandoned orchards. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3917https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3917Thu, 11 Aug 2022 11:04:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or create bare ground Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of maintaining or creating bare ground. Two studies were in the UK, and one was in each of the Netherlands and the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a similar species richness of both grassland butterflies and disturbance-tolerant butterflies to undisturbed margins. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after 1–2 years, grass field margins disked to create bare ground had a higher abundance of disturbance-tolerant, but not grassland, butterflies to undisturbed margins. One replicated, site comparison study in the Netherlands found that Alcon large blue occupied a similar proportion of heathlands managed with sod cutting and unmanaged heathlands. However, the same study found that Alcon large blues were less likely to occur on heathlands where sod cutting and grazing were used together. One site comparison study in the UK found that a sand dune plot which had been stripped of turf and soil supported a translocated population of belted beauty moths, but a plot which had been strimmed and raked did not. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the UK reported that 2-3 years after bare ground plots were created, some were used by caterpillars or adult moths of one or more of the grey carpet, lunar yellow underwing, forester and marbled clover, but none by the basil thyme case-bearer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3935Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:53:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore traditional water meadows and bogs Five studies evaluated the effect on butterflies and moths of maintaining or restoring traditional water meadows and bogs. Two studies were in the UK and one was in each of Germany, Belgium and Poland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that the species richness of butterflies was similar in wet meadows managed by mowing once/year in autumn, or by light grazing with cattle or horses. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One of two replicated, before-and-after studies in Belgium and Poland found that after cattle grazing on wet grassland began, the number of bog fritillaries which emerged on grazed areas was lower than before grazing started. The other study reported that after trees and shrubs were removed from wet meadows, the number of marsh fritillary caterpillar webs increased the following year. One replicated, site comparison study in Germany found that the abundance of butterflies was similar in wet meadows managed by mowing once/year in autumn, or by light grazing with cattle or horses. One site comparison study in the UK found that wet grassland grazed at an intermediate intensity by cattle had a higher abundance of marsh fritillary caterpillar webs, but a similar abundance of adults, to grassland grazed at high or low intensity. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study in Belgium found that after cattle grazing on wet grassland began, the use of the grazed areas by bog fritillaries was lower than before grazing started. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of fen meadows were occupied by marsh fritillary caterpillars whether they were managed by grazing (with cattle, sheep or horses), burning or were unmanaged. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3971Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:39:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain or restore native wood pasture and parkland We found no studies that evaluated the effects of maintaining or restoring native wood pasture and parkland on butterflies and moths. ‘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%2F3972https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3972Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:40:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Maintain upland heath/moorland Three studies evaluated the effects of maintaining upland heath/moorland on butterflies and moths. All three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that lightly grazed or ungrazed upland acid grassland had a higher species richness of moths than commercially grazed grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated, randomized studies) in the UK found that ungrazed, lightly grazed or summer grazed upland grassland had a higher abundance of adult moths, moth caterpillars and all caterpillars than grassland grazed at commercial stocking densities or all year round. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3973https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3973Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:40:21 +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