Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We have captured no evidence for the effects of campaigning or raising awareness about bees and their conservation. '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%2F59https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F59Thu, 20 May 2010 16:10:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit farmland wildlife A replicated controlled study and a review from the UK found that raised mowing heights provided benefits to Eurasian skylark including increased productivity. A review found raised cutting heights were less damaging to amphibians and invertebrates. A randomized, replicated, controlled trial from the UK found that raising mowing height on grasslands had no effect on numbers of foraging birds or invertebrates. One replicated controlled study found no difference in invertebrate abundance. One replicated study from the UK found that northern lapwing and common starling chicks had greater foraging success in shorter grass. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F138Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:43:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public informationA review of programmes in the USA and Canada argues that education was not sufficient to change behaviour, although it was necessary as a catalytic factor for economic incentives and law enforcement.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F162Sat, 19 May 2012 19:59:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height on grasslands to benefit birds A review from the UK found that raising mowing height may have increased productivity of Eurasian skylarks, but not sufficiently to maintain the local population. A randomised, replicated and controlled study from the UK found that no more foraging birds were attracted to plots with raised mowing heights, compared to plots with shorter grass.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F222https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F222Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:06:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water levels in ditches or grassland Of seven studies captured, one, a before-and-after study from the UK found that two wader species recolonised a site after water levels were raised. A third was found at very high levels. A review from the UK found that high-level agri-environment schemes designed to provide wet habitats were effective at providing habitats for waders and two replicated studies from the UK and Denmark found that northern lapwings were more likely to nest or nested at higher numbers on grasslands with high water levels. A replicated and controlled study from Denmark found that Eurasian oystercatchers did not nest at higher densities on fields with raised water levels and that raising water levels had no effect on nesting on restored grassland fields. A replicated study from the USA found that predation rate on Cape Sable seaside sparrow nests increased as water levels increased. A replicated, controlled and paired sites study from the UK found that birds visited grassland sites with raised water levels at higher rates than other fields. A replicated study from the UK found no differences in feeding rates on sites with raised water levels, compared with control sites.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F354Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:25:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information Two studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study) in Estonia and the UK found that raising public awareness, along with other interventions, increased numbers of natterjack toads and created 1,023 ponds for amphibians. One before-and-after study in Mexico found that raising awareness in tourists, increased their knowledge of axolotls. One study in Taiwan found that holding press conferences to publicize frog conservation had no effect on a green tree frog project. Two studies in Panama and the UK found that awareness campaigns reached over 50,000 members of the public each year or trained 1,016 people at 57 events over four years.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F831Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:05:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information We found no evidence for the effect of raising awareness amongst the general public through campaigns and public information on forests. '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%2F1157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1157Wed, 18 May 2016 15:35:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (general) One study evaluated the effects of interventions to raise general public awareness about peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. The study reported effects on unspecified peatlands.  Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in the UK reported that following awareness-raising activities, the percentage of the public buying peat-free compost increased. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1844Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (wild fire) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about wild fire on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1845https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1845Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:57:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the public (problematic species) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to raise awareness about problematic species on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1846https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1846Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness through engaging volunteers in peatland management or monitoring We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging volunteers to manage or monitor peatlands on knowledge, behaviour, peatland habitats or peatland vegetation. ‘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%2F1847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1847Tue, 28 Nov 2017 08:58:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes Five studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded freshwater marshes. There were three studies in the USA and one in each of the Netherlands and Japan. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported that the area covered by marsh vegetation was higher five years after dechannelizing a river than 10 years before. Community types (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in Japan reported changes in the area covered by different marsh plant communities over five years after dechannelizing a river compared to 10 years before. Community composition (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported changes in the overall plant community composition after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study of dune slacks in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness was greater in restored slacks (groundwater extraction stopped five years previously, along with other interventions) than in mature unmanaged slacks. One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total plant species richness tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before, but that there was no significant difference for diversity. Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified the richness of characteristic plant species – typical of dune slacks or nutrient-rich marshes – over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported that total vegetation cover tended to be lower over nine years after raising the water table than before. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table prevented increases in understory vegetation cover over the following year. One replicated study of dune slacks in the Netherlands simply quantified total vegetation over five years after stopping groundwater extraction (along with other interventions). Cover never exceeded 50%. Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study of freshwater marshes in the USA found that damming to raise the water table had no significant effect on cover of sedges Carex There were similar increases in dammed and undammed marshes over one year. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study of floodplain marshes in the USA reported changes in the cover of wetland- and habitat-characteristic plant species over nine years after raising the water table. Individual species abundance (3 studies): Three studies quantified the effect of this intervention on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, before-and-after study in the USA reported that rewetted floodplain marshes became dominated by a non-native wetland shrub, approximately 4–9 years after raising the water table. One replicated study of a freshwater wetland in the USA reported that the effects of reflooding on the density of emergent plant species depended on the species and water level. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3026https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3026Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded brackish/salt marshes. One study was in the Netherlands and one was in Tunisia. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (2 study): One before-and-after study of a lakeshore brackish/salt marsh in Tunisia reported an increase in coverage of bulrush-dominated vegetation relative to salt marsh vegetation over three years after modifying a canal to retain water in the marsh. One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported increased coverage of pioneer succulent plant communities, and reduced coverage of short-grass communities, over approximately 10 years following abandonment of the drainage system (along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that overall plant species richness increased over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Individual species abundance (1 study): One study of a salt marsh in the Netherlands reported that some individual plant species became more common over 14 years after abandoning drainage systems (along with other interventions). These included saltbush Atriplex prostrata and seablite Suaeda maritima. Some other species became less common, including creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera and common cordgrass Spartina anglica. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3027https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3027Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded freshwater swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded freshwater swamps.   ‘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%2F3028https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3028Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore degraded brackish/saline swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore degraded brackish/saline swamps.   ‘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%2F3029https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3029Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:47:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to prevent wild firesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on marsh/swamp vegetation, of raising the water level to prevent wild fires in or near these habitats.   ‘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%2F3079https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3079Fri, 02 Apr 2021 16:56:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater marshes from other land uses or habitat types. Twenty-one studies were in the USA. There was one study in each of Israel, the UK, China, Luxembourg and Canada. Eight studies used sites from a common set of 62 restored prairie potholes in the Midwest USA. Five studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in Florida. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (5 studies): One replicated, paired, before-and-after, site comparison study in the USA reported that damming a stream reduced the area of emergent vegetation on the floodplain. Two before-and-after studies of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of emergent herbaceous vegetation increased. Two studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified coverage of wetland vegetation 1–6 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Community types (9 studies): Nine studies quantified the effect of this action on specific types of marsh vegetation. For example, one before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported greatly increased coverage of wet prairie plant communities after dechannelizing a river to raise the water table, but only slightly increased coverage of mixed herbaceous/shrubby wetland communities. Five studies in the USA and Luxembourg simply quantified the number, abundance or extent of wetland plant communities present 1–6 years after raising the water table (typically along with other interventions). Community composition (8 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) in the USA evaluated the effects of rewetting farmed depressions (along with planting cover crops in/around them). One of these studies reported that restored wetlands contained a different overall plant community to natural wetlands after 5–7 years. One study reported that the plant community composition differed more between restored and natural wetlands than amongst restored or natural wetlands. The final study found that restoration increased vegetation quality after ≥10 years, but not to the level of natural wetlands. Two site comparison studies in China and the USA reported that the plant community became more similar to natural wetlands over 6–15 years after raising the water level – in terms of species composition or overall wetness. Three replicated studies in the USA simply quantified the plant community composition for up to three years after rewetting farmland (sometimes along with other interventions). Overall richness/diversity (12 studies): Four replicated, site comparison studies (two also paired) of one set of historically farmed depressions in the USA reported that restored wetlands (rewetted, along with planting cover crops in/around the sites) had lower overall plant species richness than nearby natural wetlands, after 1–7 years. Two before-and-after, site comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that raising the water level reduced overall plant species richness in the following six years. One site comparison study of lakeshore marshes in China reported that the total plant species richness in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. Five studies (two replicated) in the USA and Israel simply quantified overall plant species richness and/or diversity between three months and 19 years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after, site-comparison study of a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level had no clear effect on the richness of wetland-characteristic plant species in the following six years. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                                             Overall abundance (9 studies): Three before-and-after, site-comparison studies of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following 6–9 years. One site comparison study in China reported that vegetation biomass in former paddy fields with breached weirs was similar to a nearby natural marsh, after 2–15 years. In contrast, one replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that vegetation cover in rewetted, formerly farmed depressions (also planted with cover crops) was lower than in nearby natural wetlands, after 5–7 years. Four studies (two replicated) in the USA and the UK simply quantified vegetation abundance between three months and six years after raising the water table (sometimes along with other interventions). Characteristic plant abundance (4 studies): Three before-and-after studies (two also site comparisons) of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level increased the abundance of habitat- and/or wetland-characteristic plant species in the following 6–9 years. One study in the UK simply quantified the abundance of wet meadow plant species present 3–5 years after rewetting farmland (and introducing grazing). Bryophyte abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that the frequency of bryophytes in (the wettest parts of) marshes rewetted 34 years previously was not significantly different from their frequency in (the wettest parts of) nearby natural marshes. Individual species abundance (11 studies): Eleven studies quantified the effect of this action on the abundance of individual plant species. For example, one replicated, site comparison study of freshwater marshes in the USA reported that Kneiff’s feathermoss Leptodictyum riparium was the most abundant plant species in marshes rewetted 34 years previously and nearby natural marshes. One before-and-after study of historical wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, some plots became dominated by a non-native grass species. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3198https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3198Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:44:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create brackish/salt marshes from other land uses or habitat types. Both studies were in the same area of Iraq, but used different study sites. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Community types (1 study): One before-and-after study of a slightly brackish marsh in Iraq reported that fewer plant community types were present three years after reflooding than before drainage. Overall richness/diversity (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies of brackish marshes in Iraq reported that fewer plant species were present three years after reflooding than before drainage. One of these studies also reported that individual plant communities typically had lower diversity after reflooding than before drainage. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study of a slightly brackish marsh in Iraq reported that six of seven studied plant communities had lower spring and/or summer biomass three years after reflooding than before drainage. VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3199https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3199Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create freshwater swamps from other land uses or habitat types. Both studies monitored the effects of one river dechannelization project in the USA. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a floodplain in the USA reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, the area of shrubby and forested wetlands increased – reaching greater coverage than before intervention, but also than before degradation. Community types (1 study): The same study broke down overall swamp coverage into specific community types. For example, most of the shrubby wetlands that developed after raising the water level were dominated by a non-native species – which was not present historically. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE                                                                             Overall abundance (1 study): One before-and-after, site comparison study of historical shrubby wetlands on a floodplain in the USA reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level reduced overall vegetation cover in the following nine years. Characteristic plant abundance (1 study): The same study reported that after dechannelizing a river to raise the water level, only one of two sites became dominated by wetland-characteristic shrubs. The other site remained dominated by wetland-characteristic herb species. Individual species abundance (1 study): The same study reported that dechannelizing a river to raise the water level slightly increased cover of buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis in one of two sites (no data for other site). VEGETATION STRUCTURECollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3200https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3200Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land usesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level to restore/create brackish/saline swamps from other land uses or habitat types.   ‘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%2F3201https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3201Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:45:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise water level (before/after planting)We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of raising the water level in areas planted with emergent marsh/swamp plants.   ‘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%2F3274https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3274Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:03:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise public awareness about marshes or swampsWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of interventions to raise public awareness about marshes or swamps.   ‘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%2F3389https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3389Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:52:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise mowing height One study evaluated the effects of raising mowing height on reptile populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that in long-sward pastures or crops marbled geckos did not navigate directly towards a tree, whereas in short-sward pastures they did. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3513Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:11:55 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions We found no studies that evaluated the effects of raising awareness amongst the general public to promote conservation actions for 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%2F3847https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3847Tue, 05 Jul 2022 11:26:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Raise cutting height on grasslands Two studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of raising cutting height on grasslands. One study was in each of the UK and Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar species richness of butterflies to plots cut to 5 cm. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the UK found that intensively managed grassland plots cut to 10 cm in May and July had a similar abundance of butterflies and caterpillars to plots cut to 5 cm. Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that the survival of large white caterpillars in grassland plots cut to 9 cm was similar to in plots cut to 6 cm2. Condition (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Switzerland found that a similar proportion of wax model caterpillars were damaged when meadows were cut to 9 cm or 6 cm. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3968Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:38:54 +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