Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave field margins unsprayed within the crop (conservation headlands)Two replicated controlled trials in England showed that conservation headlands do not attract more foraging bumblebees than conventional crop fields. One replicated trial found fewer bees on conservation headlands than in naturally regenerated, uncropped field margins in England.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F29https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F29Thu, 20 May 2010 13:15:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave arable field margins uncropped with natural regenerationFour replicated trials in the UK have found more bumblebees (and more bee species in two trials) foraging on uncropped field margins than on cropped margins. One small unreplicated trial found similar bee species richness on a naturally regenerated margin as on margins sown with wildflowers. A small replicated trial found that neither abundance nor diversity of bumblebees were higher on naturally regenerated margins than on cropped margins. Two trials note that the value of naturally regenerated uncropped field margins is based on thistle species considered to be pernicious weeds requiring control. Two trials found that the value of naturally regenerated uncropped field margins for bees was not consistent from year to year. We have captured no evidence on the effects of field margin management on solitary bees.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F20Thu, 20 May 2010 16:57:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave refuges in fields during harvest A replicated study in France found that fewer gamebirds came into contact with mowing machinery when refuges were left in fields than when they were not left. A review from the UK found that Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis did not nest at higher densities in uncut refuges than in the rest of the fields.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F193https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F193Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:35:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave overwinter stubbles The three studies from the UK (one replicated) that report population-level changes found positive effects of over-winter stubble provision, but all investigated multiple interventions at once. Eight studies from the UK, including a systematic review, found that at least some species or groups of farmland birds were positively associated with over-winter stubbles, or were found on stubbles. Three studies investigated multiple interventions without separating the effects of each. Two studies reported that seed-eating birds in particular were more abundant on stubbles. One of the eight studies found that no more positive responses to stubbles were found than would be expected by chance. A replicated, randomised and controlled study from the UK found that 22 of 23 species did not preferentially use stubbles compared to cover crops. A replicated study from the UK found that the area of stubble in a site was negatively related to grey partridge Perdix perdix brood size. Five studies from the UK, four replicated, found that stubble management affected use by birds. Some species or groups were more common on cut stubbles, some on uncut and some showed preferences for barley over wheat. One study found that only Eurasian skylarks Alauda arvensis were more common on stubbles under agri-environment schemes, and only on highly prescriptive schemes. One study found that all seed-eating species were more abundant on stubbles under agri-environment schemes in one of two regions studied.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F203https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F203Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:13:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Three studies from Europe, two replicated, found that conservation headlands were frequently used by some of all of the bird species studied, or were strongly associated with species. A review from the UK found that grey partridge Perdix perdix populations were far larger on farms with conservation headlands and other interventions in place than other farms. Two replicated studies from Europe found that species were not associated with, or were no more abundant on, conservation headlands, compared with control fields. All four studies, three replicated, that investigated survival found higher grey partridge Perdix perdix chick or adult survival on sites with conservation headlands than control sites. One found that this difference was not significant. Five studies from Europe, four replicated, found larger grey partridge broods on farms with conservation headlands, one study found that differences were not significant. One replicated study from the UK found that fewer broods were found in fields with conservation headlands. Another replicated study from the UK found no relationship between conservation headlands and partridge brood size or young to adult ratio.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F461Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:39:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes 'lapwing plots') Nineteen individual studies looked at the effect of uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on wildlife. Seventeen studies from the UK and northwest Europe (six reviews and seven replicated studies of which two were site comparisons, one a before-and-after trial and one was controlled and randomized) found that leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on farmland provides benefits to some or all target farmland bird species, plants, invertebrates, and mammals. These wildlife benefits included increased species richness of plants, bumblebees, species richness and abundance of spiders, abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates and ground beetles, increased stone curlew breeding population size, northern lapwing hatching success, Eurasian skylark nesting success and the establishment, abundance or species richness of rare arable plant species. A replicated study found northern lapwing, Eurasian skylark, grey partridge and yellow wagtail bred in lapwing plots. Two studies (a replicated study and a review) from the UK found that leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on farmland had no effect on 11 out of 12 farmland bird species or ground beetles. A replicated site comparison study in the UK found fewer seed-eating birds on fallow plots for ground-nesting birds in two out of three regions. One review from the UK found evidence that pernicious weeds were more commonly found on uncropped cultivated margins than conservation or conventional headlands. A replicated site comparison from the UK found the proportion of young grey partridges in the population was lower in areas with a high proportion of uncropped cultivated margins and plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F562Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:57:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Twenty-two studies from 14 replicated, controlled experiments (of which two randomized) including two reviews, from a total of 32 studies from 20 experiments (of which 17 replicated, controlled) including three reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated species richness and diversity of farmland wildlife found that conservation headlands contained higher species richness or diversity of invertebrates or plants than other habitat types. Twelve studies (including a review) from ten replicated experiments (of which eight controlled and three controlled and randomized) found that some or all invertebrates or plants investigated did not have higher species richness or diversity on conservation headlands compared to other habitat types. This included both replicated, controlled studies investigating bee diversity. Two replicated studies from the UK found that unfertilized conservation headlands had more plant species than fertilized conservation headlands. Positive effects of conservation headlands on abundances or behaviours of some or all species investigated were found by 27 studies from 15 replicated experiments (of which 13 controlled) including five reviews out of a total of 36 studies from 20 experiments (17 replicated, controlled) including five reviews from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK that investigated birds (some studies looked at number of visits), mammals (some studies looked at number of visits), invertebrates and plant abundance/cover. One review from the UK found a positive effect on grey partridge populations but did not separate the effects of several other interventions including conservation headlands. Nineteen studies from 13 replicated (12 controlled) experiments and a review from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK found that some or all species of birds, invertebrates or plants investigated were at similar, or lower, abundances on conservation headlands compared to other management. One review from the UK and a study in Germany found conservation headlands had a positive effect on plants and some, but not all invertebrates, or rare arable weeds but did not specify how. All eight studies from the UK and Sweden that investigated species’ productivity, from three replicated (two controlled) experiments including two reviews found that grey partridge productivity or survival was higher in conservation headlands (or in sites with conservation headlands), compared to other management. One replicated study from the UK found that conservation headlands did not increase the proportion of young grey partridges in the population. A before-and-after study from the UK found that some invertebrates in conservation headlands survived pesticide applications to neighbouring fields. A review found crop margins reduce the effects of spray drift on butterflies. A replicated study from Germany and a review found that conservation headlands appeared to prevent or reduce the establishment and spread of pernicious weeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F652Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:36:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave overwinter stubbles Eighteen studies (including four reviews and one systematic review) investigated the effects of overwinter stubbles on farmland wildlife. Thirteen studies from Finland, Switzerland and the UK (six replicated trials, including two site comparisons, four reviews and a systematic review) found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles provides some benefits to plants, insects, spiders, mammals and farmland birds. These benefits include higher densities of farmland birds in winter, increased grey partridge productivity, and increased cirl bunting population size (in combination with several other conservation measures) and territory density. One replicated site comparison study from the UK found evidence that leaving overwinter stubbles had inconsistent or no effects on farmland bird numbers. Three studies found only certain bird species showed positive associations with overwinter stubbles. Two replicated studies (of which one also randomized and controlled) found that only Eurasian skylark or both Eurasian skylark and Eurasian linnet benefited, out of a total 23 and 12 farmland bird species tested respectively. One study found that only grey partridge and tree sparrow showed positive population responses to areas with overwinter stubbles. Two studies from the UK (one randomized, one replicated and controlled) found that different farmland bird species benefited from different stubble heights. One replicated site comparison found mixed effects between different stubble management options on seed-eating bird abundance.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F695https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F695Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:01:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave part of the crop or pasture unharvested or uncutNatural enemies: We found eight studies from Australia, Germany, Hungary, New Zealand, Switzerland and the USA that tested leaving part of the crop or pasture unharvested or unmown. Three (including one replicated, controlled trial) found an increase in abundance of predatory insects or spiders in the crop field or pasture that was partly uncut, while four (including three replicated, controlled trials) found more predators in the unharvested or unmown area itself. Two studies (one replicated and controlled) found that the ratio of predators to pests was higher in partially cut plots and one replicated, controlled study found the same result in the uncut area. Two replicated, controlled studies found differing effects between species or groups of natural enemies. Predation and parasitism: One replicated, controlled study from Australia found an increase in predation and parasitism rates of pest eggs in unharvested strips. Pests: Two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) found a decrease in pest numbers in partially cut plots, one of them only for one species out of two. Two studies (one replicated, the other controlled) found an increase in pest numbers in partially cut plots, and two studies (including one replicated, controlled study) found more pests in uncut areas. Crops studied were alfalfa and meadow pasture.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F725https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F725Thu, 30 May 2013 13:16:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave coarse woody debris in forests Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that there was no significant difference in abundance in clearcuts with woody debris retained or removed for eight of nine amphibian species, but that the overall response (population, physiological and behavioural) of amphibians was more negative where woody debris was retained. Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA and Indonesia found that the removal of coarse woody debris from standing forest did not decrease amphibian diversity or overall amphibian abundance, but did reduce species richness in one study. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that migrating amphibians used clearcuts where woody debris was retained more than where it was removed. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that within clearcut forest, survival of juvenile amphibians was significantly higher in piles of woody debris than in open areas, and was similar in wood piles to unharvested forest.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F843https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F843Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:15:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to total clearcutting, leaving dead or wildlife trees did not result in higher abundances of salamanders. Two studies (including one randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA found that compared to no harvesting, leaving dead or wildlife trees during clearcutting did not prevent a decrease in salamander abundance or change in species composition. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the USA found that numbers of amphibian species and abundance were similar with removal or creation of dead trees within forest. One randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that compared to unharvested plots, the proportion of female salamanders carrying eggs, eggs per female or proportion of juveniles were similar or lower in harvested plots that included plots where dead and wildlife trees were left during clearcutting, depending on species and time since harvest.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F845https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F845Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:07:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave bat roosts and roost entrances unlit Five studies evaluated the effects of leaving bat roosts and roost entrances unlit on bat populations. Two studies were in the UK, and one study was in each of Canada, Hungary and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Canada found that numbers of big brown bats and little brown bats roosting in buildings increased when roosts were left unlit and decreased when roosts were illuminated with artificial lights. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Hungary found that juvenile bats had a higher body mass and greater forearm length at unlit roosts than at roosts with artificial lighting. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES)      Use (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in Sweden found that all of 13 unlit churches continued to be used by brown long-eared bat colonies over 25 years, but bat colonies abandoned their roosts at 14 of 23 churches that were either partly or fully lit with floodlights. Behaviour change (3 studies): Three controlled studies (including two replicated studies) in the UK and Hungary found that more bats emerged, and bats emerged earlier and foraged for shorter periods, when roosts were left unlit than when they had artificial lighting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1017Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:54:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging for sleeping sites We found no evidence for the effects of leaving hollow trees in 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%2F1489https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1489Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:35:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave pipelines and infrastructure in place following decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving pipelines and infrastructure in place following decommissioning 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%2F2059https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2059Mon, 21 Oct 2019 13:41:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave mining waste (tailings) in place following cessation of disposal operations One study examined the effects of leaving mining waste (tailings) in place following cessation of disposal operations on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. The study was in Auke Bay (USA).   COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall community composition (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had similar invertebrate community composition as plots where tailings had been removed, but both had different communities to plots of natural sediment. Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had similar invertebrate species richness as plots where tailings had been removed, but both had lower richness compared to plots of natural sediment. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in Auke Bay found that plots where mine tailings were left in place had similar invertebrate overall abundance and biomass as plots where tailings had been removed. While plots with and without tailings had similar abundances to plots of natural sediment, their biomasses were higher. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2077https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2077Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:45:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave areas of uncut ryegrass in silage field We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving areas of uncut ryegrass in silage field. ‘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%2F2400https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2400Thu, 28 May 2020 10:59:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave cut vegetation in field to provide cover One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving cut vegetation in field to provide cover. This study was in the USA KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that increasing cover, by adding cut vegetation (hay), did not increase rodent abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2401https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2401Thu, 28 May 2020 11:01:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving headlands in fields unsprayed. One study was in the UK and one was in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (one also controlled) in the UK and the Netherlands, found that crop edge headlands that were not sprayed with pesticides were used more by mice than were sprayed crop edges. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2540Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:43:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing deadwood/snags in forests One study evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving standing deadwood or snags in forests. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that increasing the quantity of standing deadwood in forests increased the abundance of one of three shrew species, compared to removing deadwood. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2646https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2646Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:32:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave coarse woody debris in forests Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of leaving coarse woody debris in forests. One study was in Canada, one was in the USA and one was in Malaysia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study, in Malaysia found more small mammal species groups in felled forest areas with woody debris than without. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One out of three replicated studies (two controlled, one site comparison, one before-and-after) in Canada, the USA and Malaysia found that retaining or adding coarse woody debris did not increase numbers or frequency of records of small mammals. The other study found that two of three shrew species were more numerous in areas with increased volumes of coarse woody debris than areas without coarse woody debris. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2647Fri, 12 Jun 2020 17:38:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave anthropogenic structures in place after decommissioning We found no studies that evaluated the effects of leaving anthropogenic structures in place after decommissioning 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%2F2922https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2922Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:37:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave standing/deadwood snags in forests Two studies evaluated the effects of leaving standing/deadwood snags in forests on reptile populations. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile diversity and species richness when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile diversity and species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies in the USA found that adding snags and woody debris had mixed effects on reptile abundance when compared to not manipulating debris or removing debris. The other study found that increasing standing coarse woody debris had no effect on reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3631Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave some areas unburned during prescribed burning Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of leaving some areas unburned during prescribed burning. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated study in the USA reported that the abundance of Karner blue butterflies increased over 2–3 years in oak savannas and prairies where unburned patches were left during prescribed burning. One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that six out of nine specialist butterfly species were more abundant, one was less abundant, and two had similar abundance in pine barrens and prairies where unburned areas were left during prescribed burning compared to at sites without unburned areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated study in the USA reported that Karner blue butterflies were recorded using all 11 unburned patches which were surveyed within oak savannas and prairies managed by burning. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3879https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3879Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:45:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands) Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of leaving headlands in fields unsprayed. Four studies were in the UK, and two were in the Netherlands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in the UK and the Netherlands found that unsprayed headlands in arable fields had a greater species richness of butterflies than headlands sprayed with herbicide and insecticide. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four of five replicated, controlled studies (including one randomized study) in the UK and the Netherlands found that unsprayed headlands in arable and pasture fields had a greater abundance of butterflies and caterpillars than headlands sprayed with herbicide and insecticide. The other study found that unsprayed headlands in arable fields had a similar abundance of caterpillars to headlands sprayed with herbicide. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that large white, small white and green-veined white butterflies spent more time in unsprayed arable headlands than adjacent hedgerows, but more time in the hedgerows when adjacent headlands were sprayed with herbicide. The same study found that gatekeepers spent more time in hedgerows than headlands regardless of whether the headlands were unsprayed or sprayed. Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in the UK found that large white, small white and green-veined white butterflies spent more time feeding and interacting, or had slower flight speeds, in unsprayed arable headlands than in headlands sprayed with herbicide. However, the same study found that male gatekeepers spend less time feeding and interacting, and had faster flight speeds, in unsprayed headlands than in sprayed headlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3898https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3898Tue, 09 Aug 2022 14:23:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave uncropped, cultivated margins or plots Four studies evaluated the effects of leaving uncropped, cultivated margins or plots on butterflies and moths. Three were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three replicated studies (including one randomized, paired, controlled study, one replicated, randomized, site comparison study, and one site comparison study) in the UK and Switzerland found that farms managed under agri-environment schemes, or with a greater area of in-field agri-environment scheme options, both including uncropped cultivated margins, had a similar species richness of butterflies and moths to conventional farms or farms with a smaller area of in-field options. The other study found that fields with wider margins between crops had higher butterfly species richness in one of two years. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the UK found that fields with wider margins between crops had a higher abundance of butterflies in one of two years. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the UK found that farms managed under agri-environment schemes (AES), including uncropped cultivated margins, had a higher abundance of butterflies and micro-moths, but a similar abundance of other moths, compared to conventionally managed farms. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that farms managed with enhanced AES options, including uncropped, cultivated margins, had a higher abundance of some butterflies, but a lower abundance of other butterflies, than farms with simpler AES management. One replicated, site comparison study in Switzerland found that farms with a larger area of in-field AES options, including uncropped, cultivated plots, had a similar abundance of butterflies to farms with a smaller area of in-field AES options. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3923https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3923Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:56:56 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue