Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore heathlandOne small trial of early-stage lowland heath restoration activity did not have an adverse effect on bumblebee diversity at one site in southeast England. Two replicated trials in Dorset indicated that long-term restoration of dry lowland heath can restore a bee community similar to that on ancient heaths. One of these studies showed that the community of conopid flies parasitizing bumblebees remained impoverished 15 years after heathland restoration began. We found no evidence on interventions to conserve bees on upland heath or moorland. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F9https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F9Thu, 20 May 2010 03:20:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forests Thirteen of 15 studies from across the world found that bird communities in restored forests were similar to original forests or that species returned to restored sites, that species recovered significantly better than ats unrestored site, that species richness, diversity or abundances increased over time or that restoration techniques themselves improved over time. Nine of the studies found that some species did not return to restored sites, or were less common than in original forests. One study also found that overall territory density decreased over time and another found that territory densities were similar between sites planted with oak Quercus spp. saplings and unplanted sites. One study from the USA found that productivity of birds was similar in restored and natural forests. Another found that productivity was lower. A study from the USA found that fast-growing cottonwood forests less than ten years old held more territories and had higher diversity than similarly-aged oak forests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F360https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F360Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:58:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grasslands Of 23 studies found, three from the USA, Canada and Iceland found that species richness on restored grassland sites was similar to remnant habitats or higher than unrestored sites. One replicated, randomised study from the USA found that bird diversity was lower on restored grassland sites compared to hayfields or pastures, whilst a small American study found that species richness declined at one of two fields restored to grassland from croplands. Three studies from the USA found that target species used restored grasslands. Two studies from the USA found that CRP fields held disproportionate proportions of total bird populations, or that local population trends were correlated with the amount of CRP land in the area. Six studies from the USA and UK found that the abundances or densities of some, or all, species were higher on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, or were comparable to natural habitats. Two studies found lower abundances of species on restored sites compared to unrestored sites, although the authors of one suggest that drought conditions may have confounded the results. Five studies from the USA found that at least some bird species in restored areas of grassland had higher productivities than birds in unrestored areas; similar or higher productivies than natural habitats; or had high enough productivities to sustain populations. Three studies found that productivities were lower in restored areas than unrestored, or that productivities on restored sites were too low to sustain populations. A replicated study from the USA found that older CRP fields held more nests, but fewer species than young fields. Two replicated American studies found no differences in species richness or abundances between CRP fields and riparian filter strips whether they were sown with warm- or cool-season grasses, whilst another found that more grassland specialist species were found on sites sown with non-native species. A replicated study from the USA found no difference in bird densities between sites seeded with redtop grass and those not seeded. A study from Iceland found that very few birds were found on restored sites, unless they were sown with Nootka lupin. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F361Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:44:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create coastal and intertidal wetlands All six studies found, from the USA and UK, found that target bird species used restored or created wetlands. Two found that numbers and/or diversity were at least as high as in natural wetlands, one that numbers were higher than in unrestored sites. Three found that bird numbers on wetlands increased over time. Two studies from the UK found that songbirds and waders decreased following wetland restoration, whilst a study from the USA found that songbirds were more common on unrestored sites than restored wetlands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F367https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F367Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:15:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat connectivity One before-and-after study in Italy found that restoring connectivity between two wetlands by raising a road on a viaduct, significantly decreased deaths of migrating amphibians. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F840Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:48:56 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat corridors We found no evidence for the effects of restoring habitat corridors 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%2F1583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1583Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:06:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat in area predicted to have suitable climate for shrubland species in the future We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitat in areas predicted to have a suitable climate for shrubland species in the future 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%2F1672https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1672Sun, 22 Oct 2017 15:19:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore natural water level fluctuations We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of restoring natural water level fluctuations per se. ‘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%2F1758https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1758Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:34:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest or woodland Two studies evaluated the effects of restoring forests on bat populations. One study was in Brazil and one in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that a reforested area had significantly lower bat diversity than a native forest fragment. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled, site comparison study in Australia found that forests restored after mining had significantly higher or similar bat activity (relative abundance) as unmined forests for five of seven bat species. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2050Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:43:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland One study evaluated the effects of creating grassland on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired sites study in the UK found that pipistrelle activity (relative abundance) did not differ between species-rich grassland created on agri-environment scheme farms and improved pasture or crop fields on conventional farms. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2051Fri, 07 Dec 2018 12:47:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitats and/or habitat-forming (biogenic) species following extreme events We found no studies that evaluated the effects of restoring habitats and/or habitat-forming species following extreme events 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%2F2216https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2216Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:34:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore mussel beds Two studies examined the effects of restoring mussel beds (not by transplanting or translocating mussels) on mussels and mussel bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Both were in Strangford Lough (UK). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate community composition in restored plots was different to that of unrestored plots. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, overall invertebrate community composition in plots restored with shells and mussels was different to plots restored without mussels (shells only), and both were different to unrestored plots and to nearby natural horse mussel beds. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate species diversity was lower in restored plots compared to unrestored plots, but species richness was similar. One replicated, controlled study in the same area found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed and translocating horse mussels, species richness and diversity were higher in restored plots with mussels and shells compared to plots with shells only, and similar to nearby natural horse mussel beds. POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Overall abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in Strangford Lough found that after restoring beds of horse mussels by adding scallop shells to the seabed, overall invertebrate abundance was higher in restored plots compared to unrestored plots. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2247Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore oyster reefs Eight studies examined the effects of restoring oyster reefs (not by transplanting or translocating oysters) on oysters and oyster reef-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. Two were in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was a global review, four were in the North Pacific Ocean (USA), and one was in the Mission-Aransas estuary (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall community composition (2 studies): One of two replicated, controlled studies in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, the community composition of combined mobile decapod invertebrates and fish was similar on all types of restoration material used, but the other found that composition varied with the material used. Overall species richness/diversity (3 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was similar in reefs restored by laying rocks regardless of age, in young reefs restored by laying oyster shells, and in natural reefs, but lower in old shell-restored reefs. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that diversity of reef-associated invertebrates was higher in all restored reefs than on unrestored sediment, but that diversity varied between the restoration materials used. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that diversity of fish, crabs and shrimps varied with the restoration material used. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Overall abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on the abundance of reef-associated invertebrates depended on the material used for restoration and the age of the reef. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that abundance of combined reef-associated mobile decapod invertebrate and fish was similar on all restored reefs regardless of the restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Crustacean abundance (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that after restoring eastern oyster reefs, crab abundance, but not biomass, and shrimp biomass, but not abundance, varied with the restoration material used. Oyster abundance (6 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster reefs restored by laying rocks had similar oyster abundance to natural reefs, and higher than reefs restored by laying oyster shells. One replicated, controlled study in the Mission-Aransas estuary found that oyster cover and abundance varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that oyster spat abundance was similar on all types of restoration material used, and higher than on unrestored sediment. Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, that for those placed below MLLW, keeping them there led to similar cover compared to moving them above MLLW halfway through the study, and that placing the lines on cobbly seabed led to similar cover compared to placing them on muddy seabed. Oyster reproductive success (3 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher recruitment of oyster spat on clam shells than by lacing lines above MLLW, that recruitment was higher on lines placed on cobbly seabed than on muddy seabed, and that recruitment was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster survival (5 studies): One global systematic review found that two of nine restoration techniques (restoring oyster reef by transplanting juveniles, and by creating no-harvest sanctuaries) assessed resulted in over 85% survival of restored oysters. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar survival of oysters than when placing the lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to higher survival than keeping then below, that survival was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that survival was similar on lines placed near or far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Oyster condition (5 studies): One replicated, controlled study in the Gulf of Mexico found that the effect of restoring eastern oyster reefs on average spat size varied with the restoration material used. One replicated, controlled study in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to similar growth of oysters on the shells than placing lines above MLLW. Four replicated, controlled studies in the North Pacific Ocean found that restoring oyster reefs by placing lines of clam shells below Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) led to higher cover of clam shells by non-native species than placing lines above MLLW, but that for those placed below MLLW, moving them above MLLW halfway through the study led to lower cover than keeping then below, that cover was similar on lines placed on cobbly seabed or muddy seabed, and that cover of clam shells by non-native species was higher on lines placed near compared to far from the nearest adult oyster populations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2248Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:37:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore biogenic habitats (other methods) - Restore seagrass beds/meadows Three studies examined the effects of restoring seagrass beds (not by transplanting or translocating seagrass) on seagrass bed-associated subtidal benthic invertebrates. One was in the North Atlantic Ocean (USA), one in the Indian Ocean (Kenya), and one in the Florida Keys (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Overall community composition (1 study): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed had no effect on overall invertebrate community composition, but adding sand led to communities different from both unrestored and natural sites. Overall species richness/diversity (2 studies): One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed and adding sand, overall invertebrate species richness was similar at restored, unrestored, and natural sites. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar invertebrate diversity on mimic leaves and in the surrounding sediment, and similar species richness on mimic leaves at all restored sites as on natural seagrass leaves. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Overall abundance (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the North Atlantic Ocean found that after restoring seagrass beds, the abundance of mobile invertebrates had increased and was higher in restored than unrestored plots, but the abundance of sessile invertebrates had not increased. One replicated, controlled study in the Indian Ocean found that transplanting plastic seagrass mimics into bare sites, previously-restored seagrass sites, and natural seagrass sites, resulted in similar abundance of invertebrate in the surrounding sediment across sites, and resulted in different abundance of invertebrates on mimic leaves between sites although all had lower abundances than on natural seagrass leaves. One randomized, replicated, controlled study in the Florida Keys found that after restoring seagrass beds by fertilizing the seabed or adding sand, overall invertebrate abundance was not different at restored sites compared to both unrestored and natural sites. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2249Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:45:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore coastal lagoons Three studies examined the effects restoring coastal lagoons on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. One study was in the Chilika lagoon (India), and two in East Harbor lagoon (USA). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean richness/diversity (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration total crustacean species richness decreased, but changes varied with species groups (decreases in prawn and crab species; increases in lobster species). The lagoon also hosted new species not found before. Mollusc richness/diversity (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their species richness increased in the first three years but later decreased over the following six. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Crustacean abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in Chilika lagoon found that following hydrological restoration abundances of prawns and crabs increased. Mollusc abundance (2 studies): Two studies in East Harbor lagoon found that following hydrological restoration molluscs recolonised the lagoon and their total abundance increased in the first three years, but later decreased over the following six. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2250Wed, 23 Oct 2019 09:48:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites One study evaluated the effects of restoring bat foraging habitat at ex-quarry sites on bat populations. The study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in France found that gravel-sand pits had higher overall bat activity (relative abundance) 10 years after restoration than gravel-sand pit sites before or during quarrying. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2286Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:35:38 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining sites Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, in Australia, found that mammal species richness was similar in restored mine areas compared to unmined areas or higher in restored areas (but similar when considering only native species). One study found that species richness was lower in restored compared to in unmined areas. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal species richness. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored mine areas were recolonized by a range of mammal species within 10 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): A review of rehabilitated mine sites in Australia found that only two of eight studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had equal or higher mammal densities compared to those in unmined areas. One of three replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Australia, found that small mammal density was similar on restored mines compared to on unmined land. One study found that for three of four species (including all three native species studied) abundance was lower in restored compared to unmined sites and one study found mixed results, including that abundances of two out of three focal native species were lower in restored compared to unmined sites. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that most restored former mine areas were not used by koalas while another replicated site comparison study in Australia found quokka activity to be similar in revegetated mined sites compared to in unmined forest. OTHER (1 STUDY) Genetic diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in forest on restored mine areas, genetic diversity of yellow-footed antechinus was similar to that in unmined forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:08:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating grassland. One study each was in Portugal, the USA and Hungary. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar small mammal species richness compared to native grassland. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Portugal found that sowing pasture grasses into areas cleared of scrub did not increase European rabbit densities. A replicated, site comparison study in Hungary found that grassland restored on former cropland hosted a similar abundance of small mammals compared to native grassland. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that seeding with grassland species as part of a suite of actions including mechanical disturbance and herbicide application increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2566Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:52:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating forest. Two studies were in the USA and one each were in Colombia, Italy and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the USA and Colombia found that mammal species richness in restored forest was similar to that in established forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one a site comparison) in Australia and Italy found that replanted or regrowing forest supported a higher abundance of hazel dormice than did coppiced forest. The other study found only low numbers of common brushtail possums or common ringtail possums by 7–30 years after planting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Usage (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restored riparian forest areas were visited more by carnivores than were remnant forests when restored areas were newly established, but not subsequently, whilst restored areas were not visited more frequently by black-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:06:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat for marine and freshwater mammals One study evaluated the effects of restoring habitat for marine mammals. The study was in the Kattegat sea (Denmark). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One before-and-after study in the Kattegat sea found that harbour porpoise activity increased at a stony reef after it was restored with boulders and fishing was prohibited. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2920https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2920Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:36:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore former mining or energy production sites Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining or energy production sites on reptile populations. Nine studies were in Australia, two were in the USA, one was in Spain and one was on Reunion Island. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Community composition (4 studies): Two of four site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in Austalia and Spain found that restored mining areas hosted different reptile communities than unmined areas. One study found that reptile communities in the oldest restored areas were most similar to unmined areas. The other study found that restored mining areas that were seeded or received topsoil had similar community composition compared to surrounding unmined forests. Richness/diversity (5 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that restored mining sites had lower reptile species richness than unmined sites. One replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Spain found that after restoration, reptile species richness increased steadily over a six-year period. One replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored areas supported most of typical reptile species found in the wider habitat. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): Five of six replicated, site comparison studies and one review in Australia found that in restored mining areas reptiles tended to be less abundant than in unmined areas. The other study found mixed effects of restoration on reptile abundance. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that restored areas that were thinned and burned 10–18 years after restoration began had higher reptile abundance than restored areas that were not thinned and burned. Reproductive success (2 studies): One review in Australia found that one study reported reptiles breeding in restored mining areas. One study on Reunion Island found that four of 34 and eight of 40 artificial egg laying sites in restored mining areas were used by Reunion day geckos nine months and two years after installation respectively. Condition (1 study): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia found that three of three studies indicated that reptile size or condition was similar in restored mines and undisturbed areas. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three studies (including one replicated, site comparison study) in Australia and the USA found that restored mining areas were occupied by up to 14 snake, five turtle and one lizard species, or that generalist reptile species colonized restoration sites more quickly than did specialist species. One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that Napoleon’s skinks reintroduced to a restored mining site all moved to an unmined forest within one week of release. Behaviour change (1 studies): One review of restoration of mining sites in Australia reported that one of one studies indicated that there were changes in behaviour of lizards between restored mines and undisturbed areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3497Mon, 06 Dec 2021 12:43:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore island ecosystems Three studies evaluated the effects of restoring island ecosystems on reptile populations. One study was in each of the Seychelles, the USA and the US Virgin Islands. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Occupancy/range (1 study): One study in the US Virgin Islands found that following translocation to a restored island, St. Croix ground lizards expanded their range during the fifth to seventh year after release. Reproductive success (2 studies): One study in the Seychelles found that following a range of interventions carried out to restore an island ecosystem, the number of hawksbill and green turtle nests increased. One replicated study in the USA found that during and after an island was rebuilt, diamondback terrapins continued to nest on the island. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3736Tue, 14 Dec 2021 10:00:08 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore beaches One study evaluated the effects of restoring beaches on reptile populations. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that removing beach debris from one section of beach did not increase nesting success in that section. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that after the removal of beach debris from one of three beach sections, a higher percentage of both the total nests laid and failed nesting attempts occurred in that section. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3752Tue, 14 Dec 2021 13:30:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest or woodland Ten studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating forest or woodland. Three studies were in the UK, two studies were in Brazil and one was in each of the USA, Cameroon, Mexico, Malaysia and Costa Rica. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Community composition (4 studies): Three site comparison studies (including two replicated studies) in Mexico, Costa Rica and Brazil found that naturally generating or secondary forest had a different community composition of caterpillars6, geometrid and arctiine moths and butterflies to replanted forest, oil palm plantations, pasture or remnant primary forest. One site comparison study in Brazil found that a 54-year-old restored forest had a higher proportion of fruit-feeding forest butterfly species than 11–22-year-old restored forests, and a similar community composition to a remnant forest. Richness/diversity (6 studies): Three replicated, site comparison studies in Cameroon, Costa Rica and Brazil found that secondary forest had a similar species richness of butterflies and geometrid and arctiine moths to agroforestry plantations, pasture and remnant forest. Two of these studies also found that secondary forest had a greater species richness of butterflies and geometrid and arctiine moths than cropland or oil palm plantations. One of two site comparison studies (including one replicated study) in Brazil and Malaysia found that a 54-year-old restored forest had a lower species richness of fruit-feeding butterflies than 11–22-year-old restored forests. The other study found that 5–60-year-old restored forests had a greater species richness of butterflies than newly restored forests (<3-years-old), but restored forests had a lower species richness than primary forests. One site comparison study in Mexico found that a forest restored by natural regeneration had a similar diversity of caterpillars to a forest restored by planting. POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Cameroon and Costa Rica found that secondary forest had a higher abundance of butterflies and geometrid and arctiine moths than cropland or oil palm plantations. One of these studies also found that secondary forest had a similar abundance of butterflies to coffee and cocoa agroforestry, and the other study also found that secondary forest had a lower abundance of geometrid and arctiine moths than primary forest. One site comparison study in Mexico found that a forest restored by natural regeneration had a similar abundance of caterpillars to a forest restored by planting. Two of three studies in the UK reported that where forest had been restored with coppicing, felling and ride management, the number of populations of high brown fritillary, pearl-bordered fritillary, wood white and grizzled skipper stayed the same or increased. The other study found that the number of heath fritillary colonies decreased after management. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Two studies (including one paired study) in the USA and the UK found that in forest restored with selective logging or coppicing, felling and ride widening orange sulphur and heath fritillary butterflies, but not pine white butterflies, flew into restored areas more than unrestored areas and occupied a greater area than before the sites were restored. One replicated, before-and-after study in the UK reported that in forest restored with coppicing, felling and ride management, high brown fritillary presence was the same or higher than before restoration, and after restoration the butterflies were more likely to be present at sites with high brash and bracken litter coverage. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3936https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3936Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:54:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create grassland/savannas Six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of restoring or creating grassland or savanna. Three studies were in the USA, two were in the UK, and one was in Italy. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Italy found that created semi-natural grasslands had a greater diversity of butterflies than adjacent conifer forests, but a lower diversity than species-rich pastures. POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two site comparison studies (including one replicated, paired study) in Italy and the USA found that created semi-natural grasslands and restored grasslands and oak barrens had a higher abundance of butterflies and regal fritillaries than adjacent conifer forests, species-rich pastures or unmanaged or remnant prairies. One site comparison study in the USA found that prairies restored 5–10 years ago by seeding with native species, mowing, and weeding or applying herbicide, had a greater abundance of Fender’s blue eggs than a prairie restored 1–2 years ago, and a similar abundance to remnant prairies. One study in the USA reported that restored prairie supported a translocated population of regal fritillaries for at least three years after restoration. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): One of two replicated, before-and-after studies in the UK reported that following grassland restoration the area occupied by small pearl-bordered fritilliaries increased. The other study reported that following grassland restoration the number of marsh fritillary populations at each site remained the same or increased. Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the USA found that Fender’s blue butterflies spent a similar proportion of time laying eggs in prairies restored 5–10 years ago by seeding with nectar species, mowing, and weeding or applying herbicide, and in remnant prairies. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3943https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3943Sat, 13 Aug 2022 14:58:03 +0100